Week of 10-17 August 2026
I. Legislation
Foreign Investment in France
Decree no. 2026-718 of 30 July 2026 on foreign investment in France. Published in the Official Journal of 2 August 2026, this decree amends the foreign investment (FDI) screening regime by clarifying the concept of “regulated market” used to determine the scope of screening. By referring to the definition in article L. 421-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code, the text now includes French companies whose securities are admitted to trading exclusively on a foreign market — notably the London Stock Exchange, the SIX Swiss Exchange, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the Singapore Exchange, the Japan Exchange, or the Korea Exchange.
Practical implications: any acquisition by a non-European investor of 10% or more of the voting rights of a French company operating in a sensitive sector now requires prior authorisation from the minister responsible for the economy, whether the company is listed in France or exclusively abroad. The text entered into force on 17 August 2026.
Modernisation of Arbitration Procedure
Decree no. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 on various measures clarifying and modernising arbitration procedure. Published in the Official Journal of 7 August 2026 and commented on this week by legal scholars, this decree modernises French arbitration law: it establishes the priority of the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, organises the consolidation of related arbitration proceedings, and provides a revamped regime for enforcement (exequatur) and notification of awards. The text follows on from case law of the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation issued between 2023 and 2026 on commercial arbitration. It will enter into force on 1 January 2027.
Simplification of Economic Life — Staggered Entry into Application
Several provisions of law no. 2026-403 of 26 May 2026 on the simplification of economic life are entering into application on a staggered basis. Regarding commercial leases, from 26 August 2026, in the event of a transfer of the leased premises for consideration or free of charge, it will be the new lessor who must return the security deposit paid by the tenant, the amount of which may not exceed three months’ rent for leases entered into or renewed since 26 May 2026.
II. Case Law
No ruling of the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation published in the Bulletin with a precise date within the week of 10-17 August 2026 was identified, the summer period resulting in a slowdown in publication activity. This week’s case-law news was instead marked by scholarly commentary on a major ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued in July, as well as by a reminder of a priority question of constitutionality still pending.
CJEU, Grand Chamber, 16 July 2026, Joined Cases C-258/23 to C-260/23
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from a Portuguese court, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice held that emails exchanged between employees and executives of a company using its professional messaging system constitute communications protected by article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, even where they are professional in nature. The Court nonetheless accepted that a national competition authority may seize such communications during an inspection without prior judicial authorisation, provided that strict legal safeguards and effective ex post judicial review of the measures are ensured. Commented on 14 August 2026 by legal scholars, this ruling invites comparison of this standard with the French procedure for searches and seizures under article L. 450-4 of the Commercial Code, which makes such operations subject to authorisation by the liberty and custody judge and allows an appeal to the first president of the court of appeal — a level of safeguard considered higher than the minimum standard set by the Court of Justice.
Priority Question of Constitutionality — Com., 14 January 2026, Appeal no. 25-40.031
Still pending before the Constitutional Council, this question — referred by the Commercial Chamber in litigation concerning decision 24-D-09 of the Competition Authority on low-voltage electrical equipment — concerns the absence of an effective remedy allowing a person who has not been placed under judicial investigation, or was placed under investigation belatedly, to challenge the lawfulness of a search whose evidence was subsequently transmitted to the Authority under article L. 463-5 of the Commercial Code. The Constitutional Council’s forthcoming decision is directly linked to the logic of the ex post judicial review established by the Court of Justice on 16 July 2026.
For more details, contact us.