Penal Liability of Legal Persons: Conditions and Implications
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Penal liability, legal person, organ, representative, Court of Cassation, labour code, penal code, company fault, criminal law
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The summarized document is a legal analysis of the penal liability of legal persons in France, specifically focusing on the conditions under which a legal person's liability can be incurred due to the fault of its organ or representative. This analysis is based on a Court of Cassation decision from October 31, 2017.
Discover the intricacies of penal liability for legal persons in France and understand how the fault of an organ or representative can impact a company's liability. The Court of Cassation's decision sheds light on the necessary conditions for a legal person's liability to be incurred, emphasizing the importance of identifying the organ or representative responsible for the unintentional infringement.
The key takeaway is that a legal person's liability is conditional on the prior fault of an organ or representative, as stipulated in Article 121-2 of the Penal Code. The analysis highlights the need to identify the organ or representative and their fault, which can include individuals exercising hierarchical functions within the company.
Learn how French law approaches the penal liability of legal persons and the potential implications for companies. The discussion also touches on the limitations of the current legal framework and the potential need for legislative reform to introduce direct liability for legal persons, particularly in cases of mass accidents or environmental damage.
Extract
[...] Finally, in the sectors where the law designates the group as responsible, the mediation of an organ or a representative appears as a superfluous formality. Liability should be direct, whether it is social, economic or environmental liability, based on a fault of organization or functioning. [...]
[...] The commented decision distinguishes two categories of authorized persons to represent a legal entity: the first category concerns the legal representative neglecting their responsibility to ensure the strict and continuous application of the rules established by the Labour Code and regulations in order to ensure the safety of workers; the second category refers to the delegated employee appointed by the legal representative, who is vested with the authority, competence, and means required to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions. In addition to these two categories, the liability of legal entities may be engaged by collective bodies, such as an attribution commission. The qualification of representative is not limited to the legal representative or the delegated employee, but may also include individuals exercising hierarchical functions within the company. Furthermore, it seems relevant to distinguish between representatives designated by a formal delegation of power and those designated by their function or attribution. [...]
[...] This approach, although clarifying the penal liability of legal entities, diverges from European directives, which refer rather to the power of direction and the authority exercised within the entity.2. The High Jurisdiction could rely on European provisions to interpret Article 121-2 of the Penal Code in a more inclusive manner. This broader interpretation would allow recognizing as a representative any person exercising decision-making or control authority within the relevant entity, going beyond the strict reference to power delegation. B - The fault of the organ or the representative Unlike other legal systems, French law does not recognize a direct responsibility of entities based on their poor organization or general functioning. [...]
[...] By a judgment rendered on October the Court of Cassation censured the reasoning of the judges of the fact by recalling that legal persons are criminally responsible for the infractions committed on their behalf by their organs or representatives. That is why it is up to the judges to identify the organ or representative whose fault is the origin of the damage. In this case, the Court of Cassation reproaches the judges of the fact for not having 'searched if the shortcomings found in the maintenance of the equipment did not proceed from a fault of an organ of the company in violation of the prescriptions of articles R. [...]
[...] crim October 2017 In this case, an employee of an oil production and exploitation company died following the explosion of an oil extraction pump that he was trying to restart. The expertise ordered by the Public Prosecutor established that the system of freinage, which should have limited the speed of this rotation, had not functioned correctly due to a lack of lubrication, attributable to insufficient information provided to the operators on the maintenance rules for the equipment in question. The oil company, the subject of a judicial investigation, had been sent before the correctional court for involuntary manslaughter. [...]
