French Reform to Promote Amicable Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Civil and Commercial Litigation

Civil and commercial litigation in France has been significantly reshaped with the prioritising of ADR by Decree No. 2025-660 effective from 1 September 2025

French Judges now play a central role in encouraging conciliation and mediation, with the power to order parties to meet a mediator or conciliator (with a potential civil fine up to €10,000 in case of non-compliance without a valid reason).

These meetings are information sessions only and cannot force the parties to reach an agreement. The parties will have to attend these hearings in person and cannot be merely represented by their lawyer.

Confidentiality rules have been clarified: while the discussions themselves are protected, documents provided to the other party during the ADR process are not and may therefore be used in subsequent litigation unless they have been specifically created during and for the purpose of the amicable process. If necessary, the conclusion of a formal NDA will ensure a higher degree of confidentiality.

The reform also expands the possibility for the civil and commercial courts to organise a hearing dedicated to trying to bring the parties to reach an agreement. The parties must attend these hearings personally, which in the case of companies will mean sending an appropriate representative. Attendance is compulsory even when the defendant is a foreign company, in which case the hearing will probably require some adaptations to enable effective participation of the company’s representative in the discussions.

Lastly, the reform sets conventional case management as the default rule, with judicial case management now being the exception. The purpose is to encourage the parties to manage their cases actively, with a view to having their case heard more quickly.

Conclusion

A stronger move towards ADR is welcome, with the potential to save time and costs in protracted disputes. On the other hand, depending on the nature of the dispute and the parties involved, it may sometimes operate as another costly step in circumstances where it is clear settlement is not really possible but the parties do not wish to risk sanction.