The French Cour de Cassation Confirms That Dawn Raids at Private Residences Do Not Require Additional Procedural Safeguards

By Anita Magraner Oliver, Maud Lesaffre & Camilla Cozzani on April 8, 2025

In two rulings of April 8, 2025, the French Cour de cassation confirmed that dawn raids may lawfully be conducted at employees’ private residences without requiring additional safeguards beyond those set out in the French Commercial Code.[1]

Legal framework

Article L.450-4 of the French Commercial Code empowers the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) and the French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (“DGCCRF”) to conduct inspections at both business and private premises where a breach of competition law is suspected. These powers include, among others, entering the premises, searching vehicles, seizing physical and digital documents, and sealing areas or devices.

Inspections at both business and private premises require prior authorization from a Liberty and Custody Judge (“LCJ”) (juge des libertés et de la détention), who must assess their necessity and proportionality. The request must include all information available to the applicant that may justify the visit, including any indications suggesting the existence of the suspected practices. The order is notified on site to the occupant or their representative and must state the right to consult a lawyer, although the inspection does not have to be suspended until a lawyer comes.

**The Cour de cassation’s rulings**

The Cour de cassation ruled on two appeals stemming from the inspection at an employee’s home, following an appeal against the order issued by the First President of the Douai Court of Appeal, which had upheld the LCJ order. The employee challenged both (i) the legality of the LCJ’s order and (ii) the conduct of the inspection.

The inspection’s legality

The employee argued that Article L. 450-4 of the French Commercial Code does not provide adequate safeguards for inspections of private premises and that at a minimum, competition authorities should be required to adduce evidence that the employee was personally involved in the suspected infringement. The employee also claimed that, in the present case, the inspection of her home was not necessary because her work emails were stored on company servers which were being inspected. The employee contended that therefore the order violated Article L. 450-4 of the French Commercial Code as well as Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) which protects the right to privacy.

The Cour de cassation rejected these arguments. It held that inspections of private premises are permissible under Article L.450-4 if it is “likely” that relevant documents may be found on the premises, with no need to adduce direct evidence that the resident of the house has been personally involved in the suspected infringement. In this case, the Cour de cassation found that the employee’s managerial position and the fact that she regularly worked from home made it plausible that her residence contained professional documents relevant to the investigation. Her senior role was particularly important because she was involved in managing the French subsidiary and defining its commercial strategy, suggesting this increased the likelihood that sensitive strategic documents would be kept at her home. The Cour de cassation also confirmed that simultaneous inspections at multiple locations, including her home, were justified to prevent any risk of evidence being concealed or destroyed—not because of any feature specific to the employee, but based on the judge’s overall assessment of the case. It concluded that the inspection order was sufficiently reasoned and that the search of her home was both necessary and proportionate.

Allegation of procedural irregularities

In addition, the employee claimed that the judicial police officer (“JPO”) (officier de police judiciaire) failed to inform the LCJ of her health condition—specifically, that she was on long-term sick leave and experienced physical distress during the inspection. She argued that this omission violated the obligation under Article L. 450-4, paragraph 3 of the French Commercial Code for the JPO to notify the LCJ of any difficulties arising during the inspection.

The Cour de cassation acknowledged that the JPO’s obligation to notify the LCJ is not limited to difficulties that would render the inspection impossible, contrary to the views of the First President of the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, it upheld the decision rejecting the employee’s claim. The Cour de cassation found that the employee had neither objected to the continuation of the inspection nor requested that the judge be informed, and no such request was recorded in the official report signed at the time. In these circumstances, the employee could not validly claim that the JPO was required to refer the matter to the LCJ.

Takeaways

This is the first time the Cour de cassation has examined the legality of dawn raids at private premises.

The Cour de cassation made clear that inspections at private premises are governed by the same procedural framework as those carried out at business premises. The LCJ’s authorization of the inspection is considered sufficient to preserve fundamental rights under both French law and the ECHR.

The Cour de cassation held that, at the authorization stage, the FCA and the DGCCRF do not have to demonstrate that the employee was personally involved in the suspected infringement for his or her home to be inspected. It is sufficient that there be a “likelihood” that relevant documents may be found at the premises based on the employee’s role and working habits.

In addition, the Cour de cassation recalled that objections must be properly recorded during the inspection for them to be admissible when challenging the conduct of the inspection.

These rulings reflect a pragmatic approach to antitrust enforcement in the context of modern working arrangements. With remote work now commonplace, it is increasingly likely that relevant business documents may be located in private residences. The Cour de cassation has signaled that the effectiveness of antitrust investigations must not be compromised by the private nature of the premises where evidence may be found.

[1] French Cour de cassation, Criminal Chamber, April 8, 2025, no. 24-84.068 and no. 24-84.052.