On 12 March 2026, the Paris Court awarded the first damages under the Duty of Vigilance Law, confirming its extraterritorial reach and liability—while granting only very limited compensation.

Between March and September 2018, Kosan Kozmetik –the Turkish subsidiary of the French Group Rocher (formerly "Yves Rocher Group") dismissed 132 unionised employees, prompting strikes and a series of labour and union lawsuits in Turkey. In response, the parent company of the Group Rocher conducted an internal audit, which led to a settlement agreement with 72 employees.

On 21 April 2020, Petrol-İş, together with Sherpa and ActionAid France, issued a formal notice ("mise en demeure") to the Laboratoires de Biologie Végétale Yves Rocher ("LBYR"), the parent company of the Group Rocher, requiring it to comply with its legal obligations under the French Duty of Vigilance Law and to compensate dismissed employees for the harm caused by the alleged breaches of the French Duty of Vigilance Law. Specifically, this notice urged the Group to enhance its risk-mapping processes, particularly by extending oversight to all Group subsidiaries and including violations of trade union freedoms in the scope of potential serious harms to human rights.

Legal proceedings were initiated on 23 March 2022 before the Paris Judicial Court by Sherpa, ActionAid France, Petrol‑İş, and 34 former employees against LBYR, alleging violations of trade union rights resulting from the targeted dismissals of unionised workers. On 15 November 2023, 47 additional former employees joined the legal action.

Decision

On 12 March 2026, the Paris Judicial Court ruled for the first time on the possibility of awarding damages for harm resulting from deficiencies in a company’s vigilance plan. The court found a causal link between shortcomings in the parent company’s 2017–2018 risk mapping and the harm suffered by employees as a result of a human rights violation, namely an infringement of trade union freedoms.

The court nevertheless held that the 72 claimants who had previously entered into settlement agreements with the company could not be compensated again for the same harm and dismissed their claims accordingly.

The court also significantly reduced the amount of damages claimed. While 80 former employees each sought EUR 70,000, only six were awarded damages, in the amount of EUR 8,000 each. The Petrol İş union, which claimed EUR 50,000, was awarded EUR 40,000. Sherpa and ActionAid were each awarded symbolic damages of one euro, as requested.

Key takeaways

• Extraterritoriality – The decision confirms the extraterritorial application of the French Duty of Vigilance Law. Relying on Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation, the court held that the law constitutes a mandatory overriding provision (“loi de police”) and may therefore apply to harm suffered outside France. This interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent behind the law, which was adopted in response to major human rights disasters in global supply chains, notably the Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh.
• Labour rights – The court confirmed that fundamental labour rights fall within the scope of the French Duty of Vigilance Law. Relying on several international instruments – including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 – the court held that trade union rights constitute protected human rights under the law.
• Liability and expectations on the risk mapping – In line with the La Poste decision (see article [link]), the court found the group’s risk mapping in the 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans incomplete, as it failed to analyse risks relating to group subsidiaries (including the concerned Turkish subsidiary) and focused only on suppliers and subcontractors. The court considered that LBYR has thus committed a fault under the French Duty of Vigilance law, which requires the plan to cover not just the company’s own activities, but also those of its subsidiaries, suppliers and subcontractors. The defendant’s risk-based approach – prioritising the highest-risk areas, such as subcontractors and suppliers, in the initial years – was rejected. While the court did not reject risk‑based prioritisation, it underlined that LBYR had overlooked clear internal warnings during its vigilance risk‑mapping process. The court held that the risk assessment methodology therefore lacked sufficient detail to show how the group efficiently identified top priority risks. The decision otherwise confirmed that the Duty of Vigilance only imposed best effort obligations, and not a strict liability regime.
• Damages – It is the first decision awarding damages under the French Duty of Vigilance Law. Unlike the earlier Groupe La Poste case, which resulted in an injunction to amend the vigilance plan, this case confirms that companies may be held liable and ordered to pay damages where harm results from deficiencies in the plan. The amount of damages awarded however remains low and the Court does not provide a detailed reasoning on the quantum.
• Demonstration of the causal link – The court carried out a detailed analysis to establish a causal link between the deficiencies in the vigilance plan and the harm suffered. It first found that the employees had been dismissed because of their trade union membership and had therefore suffered personal harm. The court then held that this harm was linked to the shortcomings in the company’s 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans.
  In particular, the court noted that LBYR had sufficient information to identify a serious risk to trade union freedom and, by claiming to have responded to the crisis with an action plan in June 2018, acknowledged that it had the power and means to intervene. The court concluded that, had this known risk [in relation to one of its own subsidiaries] been properly taken into account, the harm suffered by the employees up to 2019 could have been avoided.

LBYR can challenge this decision before the Paris Appeal Court.