INTRODUCTION

The national report regarding the situation in France relies mainly on the data collected during the national workshops at the MPI Luxembourg, the interviews and the analysis of the case law: a summary is made hereafter of the results of the empirical study conducted in France, identifying the main problems litigants face under the current legal and institutional framework.

PERVASIVE PROBLEMS

AWARENESS OF REGULATIONS

Awareness in General

During the interviews, one issue related to the functioning of the Regulations that was pointed out as problematic is the lack of awareness or familiarity with the Regulations, both for professionals and non-professionals. As the Regulations are only applicable in cross-border cases, this results in a limited possibility to use them and this in turn does not stimulate familiarity with the Regulations by professionals.

The lack of awareness and familiarity appears to affect the use of the Regulations, increasing the occurrence of misapplications. For example, interviewees report that when French courts apply the ESCP Regulation, oral hearings are automatically held as if the ESCP were a national procedure, whereas the ESCP is, in principle, a written procedure.

The reported lack of awareness and familiarity also influences opinions on the desirability of the centralisation of procedures. Before 2019, neither EOP procedures nor ESCP procedures were centralised in France; for ESCP proceedings, this is still the case. Several interviewees are in favour of centralisation, because currently the Regulations are not sufficiently known; this includes unfamiliarity with the Regulations by judges, as they lack experience with them. However, the opinions on centralisation are mixed, especially considering consumer protection, particularly as provided for in the Brussels Ibis regime: some interviewees emphasise additional positive aspects of centralisation (e.g. fewer difficulties in finding the competent judge within the country), but also point out its negative aspects (e.g. the factor of distance to the court). For some, the positive effects of centralisation in the sense of raising familiarity with the Regulations do not outweigh the advantages of having a local court available, especially for consumers – even if the absence of a centralised court and the resulting lack of familiarity with the Regulations would mean that the procedure might move on more slowly.