SPOTLIGHT #16: French Reform of Civil Procedure
At Lead up, we are committed to providing our clients with the most innovative conflict resolution solutions tailored to their specific industry contexts. To achieve this, we stay abreast of the latest developments in our clients’ sectors and analyse these changes in relation to their needs. Each month, in the “Lead up Spotlight,” we share with our colleagues, clients, and potential partners—our analysis of a recent development related to conflict resolution in a sector that matters to us and our clients.
This month, the Spotlight focuses on the reform of French civil procedure that took effect on 1 September 2025, following Decree No. 2025-660 of 18 July 2025 (reforming conventional case management and recodifying alternative dispute resolution, ADR, mechanisms) and Decree No. 2025-619 of 8 July 2025 (introducing various measures to simplify civil procedure, known as “Magicobus 2”).
1. Context: before the reform
Until now, French civil and commercial litigation was primarily judge-driven: the case management judge controlled the timetable and directed procedural steps. While ADR mechanisms (conciliation, mediation, participatory procedure) were available, they were rarely integrated into the core of litigation and carried little procedural impact. Parties had limited room to shape the conduct of their dispute.
2. Key innovations introduced by the 2025 reform
a. Case management by agreement as the new standard
Proceedings are now managed first and foremost by the parties’ agreement, with judicial case management applying only by default (Art. 127 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), as amended).
Two types of agreements are available:
- Participatory procedure agreements – formal, written contracts signed by parties and lawyers (Arts. 130–130-7 CCP);
- Simplified case management agreements – lighter in form, which can be concluded between lawyers only or even between unrepresented parties (Art. 127 CCP).
Such agreements may:
- Define which legal issues are debated;
- Set procedural calendars and exchange rules;
- Record oral statement of the parties and witnesses (Art. 128 CCP);
- Appoint a technical expert/technician of their choice (Arts. 128, 3° and 131 CCP).
Expanded role of the technician/expert
- The parties determine the expert’s mission, scope, and remuneration (Arts. 128, 3° and 131 CCP).
- The expert must ensure independence and impartiality (Arts. 131-1 and 131-2 CCP).
- Reports produced under lawyer-negotiated agreements carry enhanced evidentiary weight and are binding unless proven inaccurate (Art. 131-8 CCP).
- This mechanism allows parties to anticipate technical questions, limit litigation risk, and potentially accelerate resolution, particularly in complex commercial or construction disputes.
Effects of the case management agreement:
- Priority hearing scheduling (Art. 127 CCP).
- Suspension of the lapse period (“péremption de l’instance”, Art. 129-3 CCP).
- Judge retains authority over requests related to the agreement, procedural incidents, defences, and inadmissibility pleas, and may order interim or protective measures (Arts. 129-3 and 130-3 CCP)
If no agreement is reached, the case is referred to the case management judge.
b. ADR mechanisms consolidated and strengthened
All ADR provisions are now codified in Book V of the CCP.
Judges are expressly tasked with cooperating with parties to promote amicable solutions (Art. 21 CCP, as amended). They can propose or even order an amicable settlement hearing, mediation, or conciliation (Arts. 129-1, 131-1 et seq. CCP).
Experts appointed under agreements may also play a mediating role, helping to narrow disagreements before or during litigation (repealing Art. 240 CCP).
c. Redistribution of jurisdiction for investigative measures
For mesures in futurum (pre-trial investigative measures), jurisdiction now lies either with the court competent on the merits or with the court where the measure will be carried out (Art. 145 CCP, as amended).
For real estate, exclusive jurisdiction is now given to the court where the property is located (Art. 145 CCP, as amended). This aims to relieve congestion at the Paris courts and redistribute disputes more evenly.
d. Entry into force
- Both decrees apply to all proceedings as of 1 September 2025 including pending proceedings.
- Case management agreements (Arts. 127–130 CCP, as amended) apply only to proceedings initiated after 1 September 2025.
- The new Art. 145 CCP applies only to proceedings and appeals filed from 1 September 2025.
3. Practical implications
This reform introduces a new balance of roles in French litigation:
- Parties gain procedural autonomy and tools to design their own path through litigation.
- Judges move from a purely supervisory role to a cooperative one, helping parties determine the most appropriate dispute resolution track.
- ADR is promoted not as an alternative, but as a central component of litigation strategy.
For international observers, this shift resonates with broader global trends in civil procedure: giving more weight to consensual arrangements, fostering ADR, and reducing court congestion. While the French system remains distinct from the Anglo-Saxon model, it is now moving closer to international standards of procedural flexibility and efficiency.
4. Conclusion
This reform marks a genuine paradigm shift. Litigation in France is no longer exclusively judge-driven: it becomes a shared process, contractualised by the parties and guided by the judge.
For lawyers, this expands the role well beyond courtroom advocacy: counsel are now also negotiators, strategic advisors, and co-architects of the dispute resolution path.
At Lead up, this philosophy is at the heart of our practice. We support our clients in preventing and resolving disputes through ADR (mediation, conciliation, participatory procedures, dispute boards), while remaining experienced litigators when court proceedings are unavoidable.