Partner
Analysis & trends
First judgment on the merits based on the French “duty of vigilance” Law in the La Poste case: the Paris Court of Appeal fully upholds the first-instance ruling
Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 5 – Chamber 12, 17 June 2025, RG no. 24/05193
On 17 June 2025, chamber 5-12 of the Paris Court of Appeal, recently created to handle “emerging litigation”, including cases brought under the French Duty of Vigilance[1], issued its first ruling on this basis. With certain clarifications, the Court fully confirms the judgment of the Paris’ Tribunal Judiciaire dated 5 December 2023[2] which had ordered La Poste to substantially revise its vigilance plan, albeit without imposing a financial penalty.
1. Validation of the First-Instance Court’s Criticism of Four Key Components of the Vigilance Plan
The Court confirmed that La Poste’s 2021 vigilance plan suffered from methodological shortcomings in four critical areas:
- A Risk mapping “characterized by too high a level of generality”: While the plan was organized around the three areas covered by the duty of vigilance (human rights, health and safety, environment), the Court found that it failed to clearly distinguish risks, “in consideration of the determining criterion of seriousness“. In this respect, the Court emphasized that “although the law does not require the plan to communicate on all risks, it must, however, in this first essential stage highlight the risks that present the highest level by means of a map that identifies, analyses and prioritizes them, separately and independently of the measures implemented “;
- Third-party assessment procedures not sufficiently based on the risk mapping: in the absence of “identification, analysis and prioritization of the most serious risks in risk mapping“, La Poste’s three-stage third-party assessment system (self-assessment, documentary and on-site audits) was deemed inadequate. The Court confirmed the injunction issued to La Poste to amend its methodology for assessing third parties on the basis of the specific risks identified in the risk map, thus reaffirming the central role of the risk map in the vigilance plan “since it is on this map that the actions to be taken to reduce risks, prevent serious harm and implement follow-up depend“;
- Inadequate consultation of trade unions on the whistleblowing mechanism: the Court emphasizes that the law requires prior and effective consultation with the representative trade union organizations, which: “ differs from a simple consultation on a predefined project, and presupposes the transmission of information and an exchange of points of view and proposals on the drafting of the content and implementation of the mechanism to be established, with a view to, and therefore prior to, its development“. However, the Court found that it had not been demonstrated that the dialogue between La Poste and the Sud PTT trade union had taken place “prior to the development of the mechanism for alerting and collecting reports“;
- An incomplete monitoring framework: in the Court’s view, the table of numerous monitoring indicators presented by La Poste appears to be disconnected from the objectives of preventing serious harm, since no clear link has been established between the risks mapped, the risk mitigation or serious harm prevention measures implemented, and the performance indicators.
2. A Structuring Decision with Methodological Implication
By extending and supplementing the analysis of the Tribunal judiciaire, the Court of Appeal important methodological groundwork for companies subject to the Duty of Vigilance Act. Key takeaways include:
- Risk mapping: while it may present the risks “in a summary but nonetheless precise manner“, the Court specifies that “the risks to be identified and assessed as part of this mapping are the actual and potential risks involved in the activities of the companies concerned, which companies must take into account when mapping their activities, in order to identify the general areas in which the negative impacts are most likely to occur and to be the most serious, and then to carry out, on the basis of this mapping, an in-depth assessment of their own activities, those of their subsidiaries and any business partners, in the areas in which the negative impacts have been identified as being the most likely to occur and the most serious”. In addition, the Court clarified that Article L. 225-102-4 of the French Commercial Code “does not impose […] an obligation to consult at the risk mapping stage” with the company’s stakeholders;
- Whistleblowing mechanism: After stressing that the burden of proof for establishing a dialogue with the trade unions prior to drawing up the whistleblowing mechanism lies with the company subject to the Law, the Court stated that the sending invitations or material to the CDSP (Commission de dialogue social de la Poste, body for dialogue specific to La Poste, in which Sud PTT participated), without minutes of the meetings is not sufficient to establish that the whistleblowing mechanism was established in consultation with the representative trade union organizations, “prior to its development“;
- Monitoring mechanisms: The Court stressed that monitoring systems must do more than list performance indicators. It should provide useful feedback for the vigilance strategy and “its content should reflect what is expected of the vigilance plan and be closely linked to the measures in the plan preceding it“. Consequently, it should “provide explanations on the implementation and effects of the vigilance measures set out in the plan to identify risks and prevent serious harm“.
To support its analysis, the Court notably referred to Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2024/1760 on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CS3D), which was adopted on 13 June 2024. Although the Directive’s transposition deadline has been extended to July 2027, and its final content remains subject to adjustment under the forthcoming “Omnibus” package, the Court deemed its principles relevant to the assessment of vigilance obligations.
Conclusion
This ruling marks the first appellate-level decision requiring a company to revise its vigilance plan. It represents a foundational precedent, shaping how the Duty of Vigilance Act of 27 March 2017 should be interpreted going forward. While companies retain strategic discretion, they must demonstrate robust methodology, clear traceability, and meaningful stakeholder engagement. This judgment sends a strong signal that courts will closely scrutinize not just the form, but the substance of vigilance plans.
