Frequently invoked by French defendants facing disclosure requests in foreign litigation proceedings, law no. 68-678 of 26 July 1968 is commonly referred to as the French ‘blocking statute’. However, the name is misleading and this misunderstanding has serious consequences for French companies caught between conflicting legal obligations.
When claimants or courts hear that a French party intends to rely on the French ‘blocking statute’, the instinctive reaction is suspicion. The word ‘blocking’ suggests dilatory tactics, which is the opposite of what the statute promotes. Far from blocking disclosure, it is simply a channelling mechanism designed to direct stakeholders to use international conventions that their own countries have ratified. In the UK, this is the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad of 1970. A more neutral name, such as the French ‘evidence law’, echoing the name given to EU Regulation 2020/1783 on the taking of evidence, the ‘evidence regulation’ would send a more positive signal from the outset.
The most frequently invoked provision of the French evidence law before foreign courts is Article 1bis. It prohibits any person from seeking, requesting or disclosing economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical information for the purpose of foreign proceedings, except through international cooperation channels. Article 1 is narrower. It prohibits French nationals or residents and representatives or employees of French entities from disclosing documents or information to foreign public authorities outside cooperation channels, where such disclosure could harm French sovereignty, security or fundamental economic interests.
It is hence clear that the name ‘blocking statute’ stems from Article 1 alone, as a French judge or commissioner appointed to examine a disclosure request within this sensitive category would, in practice, object if protected interests were threatened.
In 2022, faced with scepticism from foreign courts on the efficiency of the law due to an apparent lack of prosecution and convictions in France, the mechanism was modernised by the French government (by decree and order). A dedicated agency, the Strategic Information and Economic Security Service (SISSE), was appointed as a one-stop shop to assist French companies facing foreign disclosure requests. A referral procedure now requires the SISSE to rule on the applicability of articles 1 and 1bis to disclosure requests within one month. This timeframe is generally respected in practice.
Breaches of articles 1 and 1bis are punishable by fines of up to €90,000 for legal entities. France is now considering strengthening these penalties. A bill submitted to the French National Assembly on 3 March 2026 proposes fines of up to €5m or 10% of turnover for companies and would also sanction failure to comply with the SISSE referral procedure, which currently attracts no penalty.
Despite this framework, some non-French courts continue to dismiss the French evidence law as an empty shell. In June 2024, the High Court of England and Wales refused to give effect to the statute, finding that there was no real risk of prosecution of the French defendants in France and that the principle of comity would require French authorities not to give effect to the evidence law as it might interfere with English proceedings. Yet, this same principle of comity should have led the High Court to apply the French evidence law, which is designed to protect national interests, the very essence of what comity is meant to safeguard. In September 2025, the Ontario Court of Justice followed suit, ordering French cloud computing company OVH to disclose customer data on the grounds that there was no real risk of prosecution in France.
Both courts made the same analytical short cut: they assessed the risk of prosecution in France solely from the French defendants’ perspective. This overlooks the fact that Article 1bis prohibits not only disclosure outside prescribed channels, but also the very act of seeking or requesting such information. Hence, foreign claimants seeking documents directly from French defendants are themselves in breach of the French evidence law.
While few convictions have been publicised, it is important to bear in mind that French criminal proceedings are governed by the principle of secrecy of investigation (secret de l’instruction). Any ongoing investigations or decisions since the 2022 decree, which aimed to increase the effectiveness of the French evidence law, may not yet be public.
Fortunately, not all courts are waiting for convictions of French companies before taking the French evidence law seriously. Some have recognised and given effect to the statute, requiring the use of international cooperation channels. In March 2024, the California Superior Court, in Pitt v Jolie (no. 22STCV06081), ordered the parties to use Hague Convention mechanisms following the SISSE’s opinion. Similarly, the Scottish Court of Session, in March 2025 ([2025] CSOH 30), authorised disclosure through the Hague Convention channels. There is therefore an emerging split in the case law, including within the UK itself.
French companies that are party to proceedings in the UK can therefore face an impossible dilemma if courts continue to set aside the French evidence law: comply with a disclosure order and risk criminal liability at home, or resist and face sanctions that may compromise their defence on the merits. The only proper answer is the automatic use of international cooperation channels, which is precisely what the French evidence law requires.
It is time to engage seriously with this law and give international judicial cooperation the respect it deserves. The French evidence law seeks only to ensure mutual respect for state sovereignty, a principle that benefits all parties.
Thomas Rouhette and Ela Barda are partners, and Inès Aramouni an associate, at Signature Litigation, Paris
No comments yet