I. Legislation

Foreign investment screening in France (IEF): foreign-listed companies explicitly targeted

Decree No. 2026-718 of 30 July 2026 and its implementing order, published in the Official Journal of 2 August 2026, close a grey area in France’s foreign investment screening mechanism (IEF). French companies listed exclusively abroad (London, Toronto, Tokyo, etc.) now explicitly fall within the scope of screening as soon as a non-European investor crosses the 10% voting rights threshold — a situation that had, until now, remained subject to legal uncertainty.

The text enters into force on the 11th business day following its publication, i.e. mid-August 2026, and does not apply to transactions carried out within the ten business days following its publication.

Practical impact: non-European investors considering acquiring a stake in a French company listed abroad must now factor in, from the 10% voting-rights threshold onward, a compliance analysis under the IEF regime and anticipate the prior-authorisation timeframes from the Directorate General of the Treasury.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

Preliminary note: the week was quiet in terms of French case law strictly speaking, but was dense on the front of international law of the sea and the interplay between sanctions, prize law and marine environmental law — three branches that the crisis of the Russian “shadow fleet” continues to bring together in ways that merit the attention of legal scholarship.

I. Litigation and international maritime judicial law

1. ITLOS — Cases No. 34 and 35 (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. v. International Seabed Authority)

By orders of 4 August 2026, the President of the Seabed Disputes Chamber, Judge Attard, ruled on the next steps in the proceedings brought by these two companies, sponsored respectively by Nauru and Tonga, against the ISA. These cases, whose public hearings concluded in early July, extend the decade’s major litigation over deep-seabed mining: they raise questions about the scope of sponsoring states’ “due diligence” obligation under the Chamber’s 2011 advisory opinion, in a context where several states (including the United States, which is not a party to UNCLOS) have begun issuing unilateral licences for high-seas exploitation. The outcome of this litigation will largely determine the credibility of the international seabed regime as the common heritage of mankind.

2. Supreme Court of Sweden — restitution of the Caffa cargo to Ukraine (4 August 2026, disclosed on 6 August)

A ruling hailed as “historic”: Sweden’s highest court upholds the return to Ukraine of a vessel from the Russian shadow fleet, boarded in March for transporting looted Ukrainian grain. The ruling is of particular doctrinal interest on two counts: it implicitly settles the question of the law applicable to ownership of a vessel whose flag and actual operator are deliberately dissociated (shell arrangements, cascading flag changes typical of “shadow shipping”); and, following on from the boarding measures authorised by the EU Council in July, it opens up a body of national case law implementing sanctions that resembles, without naming it as such, a contemporary right of prize — a subject that classical maritime law believed had been relegated to the 19th century.

3. Useful reminder — civil immunity of the maritime pilot

Although unrelated to the week under review, Decision No. 2026-1208 QPC of 25 June 2026 continues to shape pilotage litigation: the Constitutional Council upheld the constitutionality of Article L. 5341-11 of the Transport Code, referred to it at the request of GIE Norgal, supported by TotalEnergies Petrochemicals France and Chane Terminal Le Havre. The ruling reinforces the pilot’s civil immunity towards third parties and invites close attention to how this immunity interacts, on appeal, with the concept of “nautical fault” exempting the carrier under Article IV § 2(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules — two exemption regimes whose overlap remains technically delicate for practitioners to navigate.

II. Regulation, sanctions and flag-state policing

4. The European Union’s twenty-first sanctions package

A doctrinally significant shift: Member States will now be able to confiscate and sell oil and goods carried by a shadow-fleet vessel as soon as it is boarded during a naval operation, without waiting for the outcome of full judicial proceedings. This mechanism, which adds to the roughly 650 vessels already listed under sanctions, takes maritime sanctions law a step further towards a logic of immediate administrative policing, risking tension with the traditional guarantees of freedom of navigation and property rights — an area in which litigation before national courts (including the Swedish case above) is beginning to provide answers.

5. French regulation

Decree No. 2026-753 of 8 August 2026 (Official Journal Nos. 0184 and 0185) authorises a data-processing scheme relating to the collection of information in marinas, pursuant to Article L. 232-9 of the Internal Security Code — an administrative port-policing measure worth noting for firms advising marina operators. Also worth recalling, as summer background, Decrees No. 2026-434 and 2026-440 of 2 June 2026, which amended regulations on maritime pilotage, port policing and dangerous conduct at sea.

6. War-risk zones and marine insurance

London’s Joint War Committee extended the recognised “war risk” zone in the Red Sea by around 800 km northward, now bringing the ports of Jeddah and Yanbu within the surcharge perimeter. “War risk” premium rates have risen to around 1% of insured value for crossings of the southern Red Sea. On the contractual side, this development calls for a review of the scope of the BIMCO CONWARTIME/VOYWAR clauses in current charterparties and the zone-refusal option they grant to shipowners.

III. Marine environment and decarbonisation

7. Oil pollution off the coast of Oman

An oil slick of around 600 km² has spread from the wreck of the tanker Caroline Bezengi, linked to the Russian shadow fleet. The incident is a concrete illustration of the systemic risk that these vessels — whose P&I cover is structurally uncertain or fictitious — pose to the international regime of liability and compensation for pollution damage (1992 CLC Convention, IOPC Funds, 2001 Bunker Convention): when the insurer cannot be found or is insolvent and the owner is a shell entity, it is the supplementary fund — and ultimately the community of contributing cargo owners — that bears the risk, adding further weight to the argument for tightening classification and mandatory insurance controls at strategic chokepoints.

8. IMO framework — Net-Zero Framework

Following on from MEPC 84 (April-May 2026), intersessional discussions continue on a revised framework, with the IMO having set a tight timetable to reach agreement by the end of 2026. The fault lines remain unchanged: outright US opposition, reluctance from several developing states over the fund mechanism, and support from the EU and island states. For scholars of international marine environmental law, this remains the best current vantage point on the tension between the IMO’s technical soft law and the stricter regulatory standards sought by the most ambitious states.

9. EU ETS (maritime)

2026 marks the end of the phase-in period: shipping companies must now surrender allowances covering 100% of their verified CO2 emissions, and methane and nitrous oxide are included in the scope of coverage for the first time. The Commission has also put forward an extension of the scheme to vessels of 400 to 5,000 GT, which, if adopted, would bring a significant share of coastal shipping and feeder services within the scope of the European carbon market — a question whose contractual implications (passing on carbon costs in charterparties, BIMCO ETS clauses) remain an open area of work for practitioners.

IV. Cross-cutting analysis

The common thread running through the week is not so much a single text or ruling as an underlying dynamic: classical maritime law — freedom of navigation, professional immunities, limitation of liability — is increasingly being drawn into external logics of policing (sanctions, security), climate regulation and governance of the commons (the seabed). The Russian shadow fleet alone illustrates this overlap: it is simultaneously a matter of sanctions law, of environmental liability law, and, as the Swedish ruling shows, a revealing test of the limits of classical vessel-nationality law when confronted with opacity arrangements. For practitioners, the real challenge lies less in mastering each text in isolation than in anticipating the points of friction between these regimes — insurance, sanctions, environment — which now overlap on a single vessel and a single voyage.

V. Major developments of the first half of 2026

With hindsight, three dynamics have shaped these seven months of maritime law. The first is the methodical continuation of the IMO’s and the European Union’s decarbonisation agenda: the EU ETS phasing in to 100% of verified emissions, the new North-East Atlantic ECA adopted at MEPC 84, the proposed extension of the EU ETS to vessels of 400 GT, and the postponement — revealing persistent international tensions — of the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework to December 2026. The second is the continuing escalation of the sanctions regime targeting the Russian “shadow fleet”, which over seven months has moved from a logic of vessel designation to one of immediate administrative policing (confiscation and resale of cargo upon boarding), with implications that remain poorly settled under general international law of the sea. The third is a particularly dense international body of case law from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — the Heroic Idun ruling (record compensation award), unprecedented provisional-measures orders from the Seabed Disputes Chamber, and the constitution of the Ghana/Togo Chamber — confirming this tribunal’s growing prominence as a forum for resolving contemporary maritime disputes, alongside a quieter body of French litigation focused on consolidating the protective status of the maritime pilot.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

I. Sanctions and EU-Russia relations

International sanctions: the EU adopts its 21st sanctions package against Russia

The Council of the European Union formally adopted, on 23 July 2026, a new package of sanctions targeting the Russian Federation — the 21st since 2022. This package primarily targets the banking, energy and crypto-asset sectors. Three developments deserve the attention of economic operators:

• Cap on the price of Russian oil: the automatic adjustment mechanism is frozen for twelve months, with the cap remaining set at USD 44.10 per barrel, in order to prevent Moscow from benefiting from the rise in oil prices linked to tensions in the Middle East.
• Russian shadow fleet: around thirty additional vessels have been blacklisted, with an unprecedented extension of sanctions to supply vessels and certain logistics infrastructure.
• Transport of Russian LNG: from 1 January 2027, European companies will no longer be able to transport Russian LNG to third countries. However, a one-year exemption, automatically renewable, has been granted to Greece, a major player in LNG shipping, in exchange for its support for the text.

Practical impact for businesses: immediate review of compliance procedures (KYC/AML, counterparty screening) for operators exposed to the banking, energy and maritime sectors in connection with Russia.

II. US trade war: new tariffs and escalation

Extension of US customs tariffs (Sections 301 and 338)

Over the summer of 2026, the US administration continued to extend its tariff arsenal, relying both on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices) and on Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — an old and, until now, rarely used provision that allows surcharges of up to 50% against countries deemed to discriminate against US trade. Several trading partners, particularly in Asia and Latin America, have seen their customs duties substantially increased, against a backdrop of a general escalation of unilateral tariff measures.

Practical impact for businesses: operators importing from or exporting to the United States must continuously reassess their tariff exposure and anticipate contractual clauses for allocating customs risk (hardship, price revision, incoterms).

EU suspends its retaliatory measures

Against this backdrop of tension, the European Union has chosen to suspend, at least temporarily, its own retaliatory tariff measures that would have targeted certain American products, favouring negotiation over direct confrontation. However, this suspension remains revocable and its continuation will depend on how transatlantic discussions develop.

European customs reform on small parcels

The European Commission has also made progress on its reform of the customs regime applicable to small parcels imported from third countries (particularly via Asian e-commerce platforms), with a view to removing the customs duty exemption for low-value shipments. This reform, driven by concerns over unfair competition from certain platforms, will have a direct impact on cross-border e-commerce operators.

IEEPA litigation before the Court of International Trade (CIT)

Litigation concerning the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal basis for US customs tariffs continues before the Court of International Trade (CIT). The debates focus in particular on the issue of reliquidation of duties already collected in the event the measures are judicially invalidated — a highly sensitive financial question for the thousands of importers concerned. The outcome of this litigation will largely determine the legal durability of a significant part of recent US tariff policy.

Practical impact: businesses that have paid customs duties based on IEEPA should carefully document these payments, in anticipation of a possible refund should the ongoing appeals succeed.

III. EU digital and environmental regulation

AI Act: continued phased entry into application

The EU Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) continues its phased implementation timeline. Companies developing or deploying AI systems for the European market must continue their compliance efforts, particularly regarding transparency, risk management and governance obligations applicable to systems classified as high-risk.

PPWR Regulation on packaging and packaging waste

The European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) continues its implementation, with strengthened requirements on recyclability, reduction of over-packaging and reuse targets. Companies in the retail and food sectors, particularly those operating internationally, must anticipate adapting their packaging and logistics chains to the new European standards.

IV. Trade agreements and international exchanges

EU-Mercosur agreement: where do things stand?

The association agreement between the European Union and Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay) remains at the heart of international trade discussions. Its ratification, still politically pending in several Member States, continues to be closely watched by operators in the agricultural and industrial sectors, given the scale of trade flows involved between the two regions.

International trade figures and the WTO

Against a backdrop marked by a proliferation of unilateral tariff measures, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has reiterated the risks these tensions pose to global trade growth, calling on states to favour multilateral dispute-resolution frameworks over an escalation of unilateral measures.

V. Points of attention for operators

This week confirms an underlying trend: the growing fragmentation of international trade, marked by the proliferation of unilateral measures (US tariffs, European sanctions) and the slow ratification of major multilateral agreements (Mercosur). Businesses exposed internationally have every interest in precisely mapping their regulatory exposure (customs, sanctions, digital compliance) and factoring these risks into their contractual clauses.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

I. Legislation and regulation

Planning law: two coordination decrees published in the Official Journal of 4 August 2026

Decree No. 2026-733 of 1 August 2026, on various coordination measures relating to the preparation and evolution of planning documents, continues the implementation of the Act of 26 November 2025 simplifying planning law (following an initial decree of 27 July 2026). Two changes deserve attention:

• environmental assessment becomes mandatory for any preparation or revision of a local urban plan (PLU) (new Article R. 104-11 of the Planning Code)
• electronic public participation (PPVE) is extended to a large number of additional procedures

On the same day, Decree No. 2026-734 of 1 August 2026 amends the list of municipalities exempted, for the 2026-2028 three-year period, from the social housing quota obligation set out in Articles L. 302-5 et seq. of the Construction and Housing Code (SRU Act).

Real estate cold-calling: shift to opt-in from 11 August 2026

Issued to implement Act No. 2025-594 of 30 June 2025 against fraud affecting public subsidies, Decree No. 2026-662 of 23 July 2026 sets out the arrangements for the entry into force, from 11 August 2026, of the general prohibition on commercial telephone cold-calling. Real estate agencies will no longer be able to contact a property owner based on a listing without their prior, explicit, specific and revocable consent (valid for a maximum of one year, with no tacit renewal). The only remaining exception concerns cold-calling linked to the performance of an ongoing contract. Breaches are punishable by an administrative fine.

II. Case law

Conseil d’État — Unauthorised construction: the Thalamy case law confirmed and clarified

CE, 30 July 2026, No. 497783 — The Conseil d’État reaffirms the principle established by the Thalamy ruling (CE, 9 July 1986, No. 51172): anyone wishing to carry out works on a building erected without authorisation must submit an application covering the entire construction in order to regularise it. Two new clarifications:

• the authorities must invite the applicant to complete an incomplete application, but this invitation is not a condition for the legality of a refusal issued in response to an application covering only new works
• the burden of proving the irregularity of the original construction cannot be placed on the applicant to the point of requiring them to establish a negative fact (the absence of prior works): the court forms its view based on the case file, using its investigative powers if necessary

Practical impact: caution is warranted for the purchaser of a property built without proper authorisation, as the municipality may require the regularisation of the entire building in connection with subsequent works.

Court of Cassation (3rd civil chamber) — Co-ownership: the powers of the secondary syndicate strictly limited

Civ. 3e, 9 July 2026, No. 24-21.792 (FS-B, panel ruling) and three companion rulings (No. 24-21.793, 24-21.794, 24-21.796) — Ruling on four secondary syndicates within the same residential complex, the Court of Cassation holds that the purpose of a secondary syndicate, limited by Article 27 of the Act of 10 July 1965 to the internal management of the building, does not empower it to collect general co-ownership charges on behalf of the main syndicate. Only an express decision of the general meeting of the main syndicate (majority under Article 24) can confer such a mandate; neither the co-ownership regulations nor a prolonged collection practice are sufficient to establish an implied mandate. The same solution applies to the provisional administrator responsible for winding up a secondary syndicate, whose powers — even where extended by the court — cannot exceed the legal purpose of the syndicate it administers: the recovery action is inadmissible for lack of standing.

Civ. 3e, 2 July 2026, No. 24-22.686 — Building on this, the Court draws a clear distinction between an action challenging a general meeting resolution (two-month time-bar under Article 42(2) of the 1965 Act) and a liability action against the co-owners’ association for a fault committed when a resolution was passed, which is subject to the ordinary five-year limitation period (Article 2224 of the Civil Code).

Practical impact: managing agents of secondary syndicates must verify the existence of an express mandate before bringing any action to recover general charges; managing agents of main syndicates should, where appropriate, place this delegation on the agenda of the general meeting.

III. Other points of attention

Rent control has been extended until 31 July 2027, tax guidance (BOFiP) clarifies the 10% VAT rate applicable to intermediate rental housing (social mix, transfer, VEFA transfer), and anti-fraud information exchanges relating to energy-renovation subsidies have been organised. On the economic front, the latest figures from the Ministry of Housing confirm a still-fragile recovery in new construction, with the target of 400,000 annual housing starts not being met in 2026.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

Ban on non-consented telephone canvassing — Ahead of its entry into force on 11 August 2026, the reform introduced by Article 13 of Law No. 2025-594 of 30 June 2025 shifts telephone marketing directed at consumers from an opt-out logic (the Bloctel list) to an opt-in logic: businesses will now have to prove prior consent, on pain of nullity of any contract concluded. Business-to-business canvassing is not affected and remains governed by freedom of trade and industry.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

I. Turnberry Agreement: one year on, the EU extends the suspension of rebalancing measures

The EU-US trade agreement known as the “Turnberry Agreement”, concluded on 27 July 2025, marked its first anniversary this week amid renewed tension. As a reminder, the agreement caps US tariffs at 15% on most European products, in exchange for the EU removing the majority of its duties on American industrial goods and granting preferential access for certain American agricultural and fishery products.

• Steel & aluminium: the EU has given the United States until the end of 2026 to lift the surtaxes applied to 407 categories of steel and aluminium derivative products, without a strict “sunrise” clause but with a reinforced suspension clause in the event of US non-compliance.
• Extension of the EU suspension: on 30 July 2026, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1893, extending until 6 February 2027 the suspension of European trade rebalancing measures — just before the 6/7 August deadline that would otherwise have revived those duties.

Practical implications: businesses should monitor developments on the steel/aluminium file through the end of 2026, as the suspension clause could be triggered if Washington fails to respect the 15% cap or adopts discriminatory measures against European operators.

II. WTO: Brazil launches a dispute settlement proceeding against US tariffs

On 27 July 2026, Brazil formally referred a matter to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning the US tariffs applied since July to certain Brazilian products, imposed at two distinct tariff levels. Brasília describes these measures as unjustified and incompatible with multilateral trade rules.

Practical implications: this dispute adds to the already well-documented US tariff tensions with the EU and illustrates the growing recourse to the WTO mechanism, despite the continued paralysis of the Appellate Body.

III. Digital competition: record fine against Google for breach of the DMA

On 27 July 2026, the European Commission imposed a record fine on Google for breach of the Digital Markets Act. The decision comes against a backdrop of tense tariff developments: several commentators note that it immediately preceded new US customs announcements, amid a climate of cross-retaliation between European digital regulation and American trade policy.

IV. French and European customs

DELTA IE: correction of customs declarations

French customs (DGDDI) has published guidance clarifying the procedures for correcting customs declarations in DELTA IE (conditions, grounds and correction procedures before or after release of goods, within a three-year period).

War materiel: update to the French list

An order (arrêté) of 9 July 2026, which came into effect during this period, amends the French list of war materiel and defence-related products subject to prior export authorisation, transposing European Directive 2026/325.

Deadline to watch

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1553, updating the list of harmful organisms prohibited from import into the EU, must be applied by 21 August 2026 at the latest.

V. European agenda for the following week (3-9 August)

Two significant deadlines are approaching: the transposition, by 5 August, of the European directive on renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen markets; and the end, on 31 July, of the transposition period for the European directive on the right to repair, which aims to facilitate the repair of certain consumer goods.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

I. Legislation

Mandatory E-Invoicing Rolled Out Nationwide

Decree No. 2026-677 and the order of 27 July 2026, published in the Official Journal of 28 July 2026, finalize the regulatory framework for the e-invoicing reform between VAT-liable businesses. They update the regulatory section of the General Tax Code to align it with the current state of the reform: the concept of \u201cpartner dematerialization platform\u201d (PDP) is replaced in the texts by that of \u201capproved platform\u201d, and the Public Invoicing Portal (PPF) is refocused on its role as a central directory (Article 289 bis of the General Tax Code) made available to approved platforms.

Following the launch of the national pilot in February 2026, the first concrete deadline for all businesses falls on 1 September 2026 (mandatory receipt of e-invoices).

Foreign Investment Screening in France (IEF)

Decree No. 2026-718 and the order of 30 July 2026, published in the Official Journal of 2 August 2026, close a grey area in the foreign investment screening (IEF) mechanism by explicitly bringing within its scope French companies listed exclusively abroad (London, Toronto, Tokyo, etc.): a non-EU investor crossing the 10% voting-rights threshold in such a company is now subject to screening, as is already the case for companies listed in France. The change takes effect on the 11th business day following publication (mid-August 2026); transactions carried out within the ten business days following publication are not affected.

This Week\u2019s Official Journal

The other texts published (Official Journal Nos. 0174 to 0179, 28 July-2 August) are individual or sector-specific in nature, with no direct bearing on general business law (private security, public health, agriculture).

II. Case Law

No Cour de cassation decision published in the Bulletin is dated precisely within the week of 27 July to 2 August 2026: litigation activity slows as the summer recess approaches. This week\u2019s developments instead concern merger control and European competition litigation:

• Competition Authority \u2014 several merger clearance decisions were issued in late July, notably in the retail/mass consumption sector (27 July), as well as in banking and insurance (17 and 20 July) and agri-food (17 and 21 July). No financial penalty decision was published this week; the last notable sanctions date back to mid-July (press/media sector).
• CJEU, Google/Alphabet (Android), 2 July 2026 \u2014 a useful reminder: the Court definitively dismissed Google\u2019s appeal and upheld in full the \u20ac4.125 billion fine for abuse of a dominant position, of which \u20ac1.52 billion was imposed on Alphabet as parent company. The decision, issued before this week but still widely discussed, consolidates the evidentiary standard for abuse of dominance in digital ecosystems and has become final, Google having exhausted all further avenues of appeal.

Also worth recalling, for reference, three decisions of the Commercial Chamber from previous weeks (24 June and 1 July 2026) that continue to generate legal commentary this week: on the interplay between the standard road-transport contract and abrupt termination of commercial relations (No. 24-19.356), on judicial review of contractual force majeure despite a contractually agreed definition clause (No. 24-21.626), and on a supplier\u2019s liability for its subsidiaries\u2019 failure to honor an exclusivity arrangement (No. 24-22.385, CIS bio/Radmed).

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

I. Legislation and Regulation

Urban Planning: A Sweeping Simplification Decree (Official Journal of 28 July 2026)

Decree No. 2026-674 of 27 July 2026 \u2014 Published in the Official Journal of 28 July 2026, this decree on simplifying local public action amends numerous provisions of the Town Planning Code. The most notable developments for real estate practice:

• Pre-emption right: an opinion from the Domaine service already obtained on a property and still valid may now be reused without a new consultation, even if issued before the declaration of intent to sell (new Article R. 213-21 of the Town Planning Code);
• Subdivisions in protected areas: a development permit is no longer systematically required for land divisions located within the perimeter of a remarkable heritage site, near a historic monument, or in a listed site; a simple prior declaration now suffices, except where new roads or shared facilities are created (applicable to applications filed from September 2026);
• National defence: new review timeframes are set for projects subject to authorization by the Ministry of Defence (up to 5 months), with a silence-equals-refusal rule;
• Publication of planning documents: instruments relating to SCOTs, local land-use plans (PLUs) and municipal maps now favor dematerialized publication on the national planning portal, with a corresponding reduction in posting formalities.

II. Case Law

Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2014 Planning Certificates and Stay of Proceedings: Rule-Freezing Is Not Absolute

Two decisions issued in early July and discussed on 30 July 2026 clarify the conditions under which a stay of proceedings remains enforceable against a building permit application despite the holder possessing a planning certificate, which otherwise freezes the applicable rules for 18 months (Article L. 410-1 of the Town Planning Code).

Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, 7 July 2026, No. 504277 \u2014 The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat upholds the absence of a stay of proceedings against a project for two residential buildings (34 units): the breach of certain rules of the future local land-use plan, then under revision, was not significant enough to have compromised or made its implementation more costly. For this type of decision granting authorization, the court exercises only limited review for manifest error of assessment.

Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat, 2 July 2026, No. 508570 \u2014 Conversely, a stay of proceedings against a six-storey hotel project is quashed: the Sustainable Development Plan (PADD), although adopted, contained no precise guidance on building height capable of establishing a risk to the implementation of the future joint local land-use plan. For stay decisions, however, the court exercises full review.

Practical implications: debate over the PADD\u2019s general orientations is not, on its own, sufficient to justify a stay of proceedings; those orientations must also be precise enough to identify a concrete risk of conflict with the project. Furthermore, the absence of any mention of the risk of a stay in the planning certificate does not prevent it from being applied later, but it does render the certificate itself unlawful.

III. Other Points of Attention

In connection with the summer works-completion period, legal commentary recalls the importance of reservations made at completion (Article 1792-6 of the Civil Code): only defects covered by an express reservation escape the presumption of conformity, which in turn governs subsequent access to the guarantees of perfect completion, and the two-year and ten-year guarantees. The decree of 27 July 2026 also follows on from the Law simplifying planning law of 26 November 2025 and the decree of 20 February 2026, ahead of a further coordinating decree published the following week (1 August 2026).

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

Legislation / Regulation

No notable French text identified for this particular week.

Case Law

No notable decision identified.

International

Practical implementation, from 25-27 July 2026, of the ability to resell seized oil cargoes created by the 21st sanctions package: competent authorities of Member States may now authorize the purchase, import and transfer of Russian oil seized or confiscated aboard boarded vessels. This development raises an unresolved question of international law: since EU sanctions remain unilateral restrictive measures not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a seizure on the high seas without a basis recognized under general international law could engage the seizing State\u2019s international responsibility for a violation of freedom of navigation and the flag State\u2019s exclusive jurisdiction. 29 July 2026: the Joint War Committee/Lloyd\u2019s Market Association extends the Red Sea high-risk area along the Saudi coast to the vicinity of the port of Jizan, in response to continued Houthi attacks.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat

Implementation of the ban on telephone canvassing — Decree No. 2026-662 of 23 July 2026 specifies the days, times and frequency at which authorized commercial telephone marketing may be carried out once the ban on non-consented canvassing enters into force on 11 August 2026.

Cooperative audit thresholds — Decrees No. 2026-660 and No. 2026-661 of 23 July 2026 amend the thresholds triggering the mandatory cooperative audit requirement for cooperative companies.

For more details, contact us.

Read more at Hervé Guyader Avocat