Remedies to compensate for damages caused by social unrest
Pierre Yves Rossignol
by Pierre Yves Rossignol
After the so-called “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) riots, which blocked traffic circles all over France in 2018, and demonstrations linked to pension reform, France’s overseas territories have also been the scene of violent rioting and destruction of businesses, vehicles, and street furniture.
Damages caused by the gilets jaunes in France is estimated to have approached EUR 250,000 million in compensation paid out by insurance companies. The riots linked to pension reform caused nearly EUR 500,000 million in damages. In the French overseas departments and territories, although the figures are not yet fully known, insurers have put the figure at over EUR 2 billion, and some have announced their withdrawal from the market.
Will we still be able to take out insurance in these territories? Businesses that have suffered damages, retailers and/or their insurers must take legal action against the French government. However, the admissibility of these appeals, and their chances of success, is subject to various criteria that may not be met in every situation.
Under the French Code de la Sécurité Intérieure (CSI), the State assumes liability for damages arising from violent mob gatherings (“attroupements”). Insured parties may seek reimbursement from their insurers, who in turn may pursue legal recourse against the State. Uninsured victims may submit claims directly to the prefect, with the option of appealing to an administrative court in cases of refusal.
Complexities in establishing state liability
Three conditions govern the imputation of state liability: (1) damages must be inflicted through force or violence; (2) they must result from a criminal act; and (3) they must be linked to a gathering. Judicial interpretations of these criteria remain inconsistent, generating legal ambiguity.
Determining liability for premeditated damage
French jurisprudence assesses spontaneity in determining liability. Damages originating from spontaneous protests – such as those triggered by police-related fatalities – typically qualify for compensation. However, courts diverge on premeditated events. Some judicial bodies have refused to classify yellow vest actions as eligible, citing their premeditated and organised nature, while others have recognised claims, resulting in inconsistencies in legal assessments.
Exclusion of gatherings formed solely for criminal intent
For state liability to apply, a crime must be committed within the context of a gathering. Groups convened exclusively to commit criminal acts fall outside the liability framework, meaning independent rioters unaffiliated with protests do not necessarily engage state responsibility. Nonetheless, courts have rendered contradictory rulings, occasionally holding the State accountable where demonstrators and rioters acted in tandem.
This judicial inconsistency places a disproportionate financial burden on businesses and insurers, who must shoulder substantial repair costs. Greater legal clarity is imperative to ensure equitable compensation mechanisms while delineating the scope of state accountability.
Read the full article here.
GGI member firmHeraldLaw Firm ServicesParis, FranceT: +33 1 53 43 1515Law Firm Services
Herald (previously Granrut) is a well-established, independent law firm created in 1957. Herald’s lawyers always try to bring fresh ideas, innovation, and best practice in its core practice areas. Two partners have been elected Bâtonnier of the Paris Bar.
Admitted to the Paris Bar in 1990, Pierre-Yves Rossignol has been a Partner of Herald since 1997 and specialises in litigation and arbitration disputes in the field of business law, insurance, and defective products. He monitors litigation proceedings in the area of defective product liability on behalf of corporations and insurance companies. Contact Pierre-Yves.
