Voices from the field - Stéphane de Navacelle

Stéphane de Navacelle
Navacelle, Paris
sdenavacelle@navacelle.law

In your professional experience, what is the most significant anti‑corruption risk or enforcement challenge currently affecting your country or region?

Over the past 15 years, France has significantly strengthened its legislative framework and adopted a public policy to combat corruption, notably through the creation of the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (Parquet National Financier or PNF) (Law No. 2013-1117 of 6 December 2013), the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (La Haute Autorité pour la Transparence de la vie Publique or HATVP) (Law No. 2013-907 of 11 October 2013) and the enactment of the Sapin II law, which created the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence Française Anticorruption or AFA) and established the offence of influence peddling by a foreign public official (Law No. 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016). However, various assessments conducted over the past few years by national and international organisations have noted deficiencies in the implementation of this policy (a Transparency International report published on 10 February 2016; ‘Addendum to the Second France Compliance Report’, published by the Council of Europe’s Group of States Against Corruption, otherwise known as GRECO, 11 December 2025; observations made by the Cour des Comptes (the supreme audit administration), dated 9 December 2025), notably due to a lack of governmental coordination in regard to a national anti-corruption strategy, insufficient resources and the absence of comprehensive coordination aimed at preventing corruption risks within law enforcement agencies.

How is this issue being addressed in your organisation, sector or jurisdiction?

At the national level, a multi-year anti-corruption plan for 2025–2029 was published on 14 November 2025, under the joint leadership of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Economy. The plan is structured around four key areas: (1) strengthening the fight against corruption and breaches of integrity within state administration, (2) assisting local authorities in combatting breaches of integrity, (3) protecting economic actors against breaches of integrity, and (4) combatting corruption at the international level (the Multi-year Anti-Corruption Plan for 2025–2029, published on 14 November 2025 by the AFA). French authorities, and in particular the PNF, are continuing their efforts by increasing the use of deferred prosecution agreements (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public or CJIPs), which have now become a central tool in French corporate anti-corruption enforcement, allowing companies to resolve corruption-related matters without a criminal conviction, subject to certain financial penalties, cooperation and, where appropriate, compliance obligations (see the article on ‘Judicial Public Interest Agreement concluded between SURYS and the PNF’, published by the International Bar Association, written by legal experts from Navacelle, 12 January 2026).

Based on your experience, what is one practical lesson, implementation challenge or effective approach that may be relevant to practitioners in other jurisdictions?

Two points may be worth noting. The first one is the absence of a rule prohibiting multiple prosecutions in relation to the same facts at the international level, leaving room for parallel or successive proceedings (‘Lutte contre la corruption - Le renforcement de la lutte contre la corruption au niveau européen. - Actualités et prospectives - Etude par Bernard Cazeneuve, Astrid Mignon Colombet, Anaïs Coviaux et Alexandre Mennucci’, Revue Internationale de la Compliance et de l’Éthique des Affaires n° 4, 25 July 2025, No.119). In France, the risk of parallel investigations is increasingly addressed through coordinated resolutions developed by French prosecutors and foreign enforcement authorities (‘Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations 2025’, GIR, Navacelle, 2025). France has developed a pragmatic response through the use of global or coordinated settlements, particularly through the CJIP mechanism. The second one is the existence of significant constraints on the transfer of information abroad, notably due to the French Blocking Statute, which restricts the communication of certain economic, commercial or technical information to foreign authorities outside formal cooperation channels.

Looking ahead, what emerging development, regulatory shift or risk area are you monitoring closely?

At the European level, a new EU Anti-Corruption Directive was adopted on 21 April 2026. This Directive seeks to harmonise criminal offences, establish minimum standards and provides for the introduction of liability for a failure to exercise supervision or control. It is expected to be transposed into French law within two years (European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 March 2026 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combatting corruption). On the French side, a key development is the proposal for a legislative framework for internal investigations (a proposed bill to establish a legal framework for internal investigations, presented by Christelle Minard, 9 December 2025; ‘Towards a French Legislative Framework for Internal Investigations’, 12 December 2025, Navacelle). The proposed framework aims to clarify key aspects of internal investigations, including the rights of the individuals involved, the role of legal counsel and the conditions under which information may be collected and used.