Decree n°2017-1387 dated September 22, 2017, on the predictability and security of labour relations, introduced a scale for compensations which allows employers and employees to have prior knowledge of the financial stakes for dismissals lacking any real and serious cause brought before the Labour Court (Conseil de Prud’hommes).
As such, if the employee or employer refuses reinstatement into the company, the judge grants the employee compensation whose minimum and maximum amounts are already determined by the scale, based on the employee’s seniority and the size of the company (Article L.1235-3 of the French Labour Law).
However, the scale is not applied in the event of dismissal deemed null and void due to the violation of a fundamental freedom, harassment or discrimination (Article L.1235-3-1 of the French Labour Law) .
When the scale was set, it was the subject of much controversy and led to extensive press coverage.
In a decision dated December 7, 2017, the Council of State (Conseil d’Etat) rejected the appeal by the French trade union CGT (Confédération Générale du Travail) which raised objections to the conformity of the scale.
Likewise, in decision n°2018-761 DC dated March 21, 2018, the French Constitutional Council ruled the scale to be in compliance with the French Constitution.
The scale should therefore be binding on the judge.
Nevertheless, late 2018 and early 2019 were marked by several decisions by Labour Courts which refused to apply the scale. To our knowledge, five Labour Courts (1) nullified the compensation scale for dismissals lacking any real and serious cause.
On the contrary, the CAEN Labour Court, in a decision by its settlement (départage) division dated December 18, 2018 (n°17/00193), applied it.
The judicial battle is essentially about two legal points:
– The direct applicability of the provisions of the Convention n°158 of the ILO and the European Social Charter by French judges.
– The conformity of the scale with the principles of adequate compensation for the prejudice suffered within the context of the unfair breach of the work contract provided for in Article 10 of Convention n°158 of the ILO and Article 24 of the European Social Charter dated May 3, 1996.
According to the Labour Court councillors who refused to apply the scale implemented by the September 22, 2017 decree, the scale is in violation of the European Social Charter and Convention n°158 of the ILO.
We will now have to wait several months to see how the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation rule on the matter.
Employers and employees are therefore once again in a state of uncertainty: the former can no longer precisely understand their judicial risk and the latter do not know the real financial stakes of legal proceedings they might initiate.
(1) TROYES Labour Court via a decision on December 13, 2018, “Miscellaneous activities” division
AMIENS Labour Court via a decision on December 18, 2018, “Trade” division
LYON Labour Court via a decision on December 21, 2018, “Miscellaneous activities” section
GRENOBLE Labour Court via a decision on January 18, 2019, “Manufacturing” division
AGEN Labour Court via a decision on February 5, 2019, “Manufacturing” division
In principle, partnerships such as general partnerships (société en nom collectif), limited partnerships (société en commandite simple), civil partnerships or limited liability companies whose single member is an individual (EURL) are not subject to Corporate Income Tax (CIT).
Nevertheless, the abovementioned companies may opt for payment of the CIT.
To be valid, the option must be filed with the tax authorities no later than the end of the 3rd month of the financial year for which the company wishes to be subject to the CIT for the 1st time.
Such option, once exercised, was, until now, irrevocable.
For the company financial years ending as of December 31, 2018, the 2019 Finance Law creates an exception to this principle of irrevocability.
From now on, companies having opted for CIT liability will have the right to revoke that liability at the latest in the 5th financial year following the year during which the option was exercised.
To be deemed valid, the revocation must be filed with the tax authorities before the end of the month preceding the payment deadline for the first instalment of the corporate tax for the fifth financial year.
If no revocation is filed within that time period, the option for the CIT shall then become irrevocable.
The aim sought by lawmakers is to allow companies, which realize in retrospect that the regime is not the one best suited to their needs, not to be penalized by giving them the right to reconsider their decision.
In terms of taxes, revoking the option for CIT is considered as a cessation of business, which, in principle, leads to the immediate taxation of operating profits and tax-deferred profits made and not taxed, as well as any provisions or capital gains for which taxation had been deferred.
However, in the absence of a new legal entity being created, the consequences of the cessation of business are expected to be attenuated, if no change has been made to the book values of the assets and if taxation remains possible within the framework of the new tax regime to which the company is subject.
Make sure to ask us for advice before making such a decision.
“Hakuna Matata”! Many of us associate that phrase with the American firm, Disney, and its animated feature film The Lion King. Nonetheless, the phrase no longer benefits from the carefreeness of the 1990s.
This now well-known catchphrase was registered as a trademark back in 1994, when The Lion King was released in movie theatres by the American company DISNEY ENTERPRISES. It was for a French trademark designating restaurant services, and an American trademark for products such as t-shirts. It means “no worries” in Swahili, a language used by a major part of Sub-Saharan Africa.
The announced release of Disney’s new version of The Lion King scheduled for July 2019 has given rise to many reactions from East African populations. An online petition against the registration of the expression as a trademark has officially requested the American firm to relinquish its right to the trademark.
Part of the African public opinion does indeed consider that this protection of the expression as a trademark is an “attack against the Swahili people and Africa as a whole”, and a characteristic sign of “theft of African culture” carried out over the years through the use of intellectual property rights.
Although the cultural and emotional attachment is comprehensible, it is worth noting that the expression “Hakuna Matata” does not appear to fall within the exceptions opposed to the registration of an American and/or French trademark. As such, a trademark based on an everyday or foreign language expression is lawful and valid, provided it is not the common and necessary designation of the product or the service it refers to. The risk for the holder(s), however, is that their rights would be limited in practice. The holder could therefore not oppose the use of the said expression by a third party, insofar as the expression is used with its everyday meaning.
Among the means that might be used for challenging the validity of the Disney company’s “Hakuna Matata” trademarks, is the prohibition on registering a country’s coat of arms, flags and other insignia as a trademark, provided, nonetheless, that the trademark at issue is not likely to mislead the public as to a connection existing between the trademark holder and the country whose coat of arms, flag or other insignia are appropriated by the said trademark.
Yet, in this instance, it is doubtful that the French and American public associate the “Hakuna Matata” trademark with East African countries; on the contrary, they will probably associate it with the American firm. Something the petitioners were probably already aware of when they requested Disney to voluntarily relinquish its rights to the trademarks. To the best of our knowledge, no legal proceedings have been initiated so far.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this case as 2019 gets off to a start…
On October 9, 2018, the French National Assembly adopted at first reading, the draft PACTE law (Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation).
Among the many measures in the draft law, some are aimed at reinforcing the development of a social and solidarity-based economy.
1- Simplifying conditions of access to “Social and Solidarity-based Enterprise” (ESUS) accreditation
Since July 1, 2015, companies can receive a “Social and Solidarity-based Enterprise” (ESUS) accreditation for a five-year period (or a two-year period for companies under 3 years old).
To be eligible for the ESUS accreditation, a company must meet the following criteria:
- – Pursue “social benefit” as its main objective (provide support to vulnerable people, contribute to combatting exclusion or inequality, take part in sustainable development, energy transition or international solidarity);
- – Prove that the burden generated by the company’s social benefit objective has a significant impact on its profit and loss account or its financial profitability;
- – Adhere to a compensation policy meeting two requirements: the average of the compensations paid, including bonuses, to the 5 highest-paid employees or managers must not exceed a yearly limit capped at 7 times the monthly minimum wage (SMIC) and the salary for the highest-paid employee must not exceed a yearly limit capped at 10 times the minimum wage (SMIC);
- – Equity securities issued by the company cannot be traded on financial markets.
For ESUS-eligible entities, the measure is aimed at facilitating access to equity capital funding, either through tax breaks (such as the IR-PME scheme), which individuals investing in such entities benefit from, or through the obligation made to funds fiscally encouraged to meet certain investment quotas in the entities concerned.
Article 29 of the draft PACTE law proposes to introduce the following improvements to the ESUS accreditation measure:
- – Facilitate access to accreditation, by clarifying the definition of “social benefit” in particular for activities related to ecological transition, cultural promotion and national solidarity;
- – Simplify the modalities for assessing the impact of social benefit activities on the business model of the companies applying for accreditation;
- – Eliminate the obligation to include the wage caps in the company statutes, and standardise the application of those caps to all eligible companies.
The possibility of setting up an online accreditation procedure is also being discussed.
2- Taking into account a company’s social and environmental aspects
Article 61 of the draft PACTE law proposes to modify Articles 1833 and 1835 of the Civil Code as follows:
- – Article 1833 with: “The company shall be managed in its social interest and taking the social and environmental aspects of its activity into consideration.”
- – Article 1835 with: “The articles of association may specify the purpose, consisting of the principles held by the company and in observance of which it intends to allocate resources for the conduct of its activity.”
The modifications are aimed at contributing to a much stronger integration of environmental law in the company governance, by highlighting the activity of companies with a genuine commitment to sustainable development.
Nevertheless, the question arises as to what extent a lack of knowledge of these obligations will create a risk of incurring liability for the company directors concerned.
The draft PACTE law will be examined by a Senate committee as from January 2019. We will keep you informed of the conditions for the effective implementation of the new measures.
Decision by the Social Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated June 21, 2018
(Cass. Civ 2e. 21 juin 2018, n°17-15.984)
As per a June 21, 2018 decision, the Court of Cassation answered the following question: Is a skiing accident during a company seminar considered a work-related accident?
Company seminars bringing together employees often give rise to various activities, in particular sports.
In this instance, an employee was attending a seminar in the mountains. A day of free time for relaxation was planned, during which the employees could do whatever activities they wanted to. This particular employee chose to go skiing and consequently bought a ski pass for the ski lifts since the employer did not cover the costs for any of the activities. As the employee was skiing down a slope, she was the victim of an accident. She considered that it was a work-related accident since it had occurred during the seminar, however the health care insurance fund (Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie – CPAM) disputed that claim.
Yet, The Court of Cassation confirmed the Court of Appeal decision, ruling that employees participating in that day remained subject to the employer’s authority as the latter was announced in the seminar schedule, paid as working time and could therefore not be considered as a day off. As such, the skiing accident, which occurred within the free time designated for relaxation, must be considered as a work-related accident.
This legal precedent settles various Courts of Appeal hesitations regarding similar cases of accidents during company seminars. Indeed, certain Courts of Appeal have indeed judged that an accident in such circumstances fell within the employee’s private life.
Thus, with this ruling, the Court of Cassation has indicated that during a company seminar, by nature paid, employees which are paid remain subject to their employer’s authority even though they may have free time for relaxation, unrelated to their professional activity. Any accident that might occur during the seminar is considered a work-related accident.
Within the framework of the next finance and social security Bill , several reforms are bound to have an impact on taxes in France for non-residents.
Overview of the main measures foreseen:
Exemption of capital gains tax on sale of main residence after departure abroad
As of today, a tax resident in France who sells his main residence is not taxed on the capital gain made on that sale.
However, a non-resident who sells the property that was his main residence before his departure abroad is not exempt from that capital gains tax but can only benefit, under certain conditions, from a one-time tax allowance of €150,000.
The draft Finance Bill for 2019 (PLF 2019) foresees an alignment between the tax systems applicable to residents and non-residents regarding capital gains made on their main residence.
Consequently, a non-resident who sells the property that was his main residence in France at the time of his departure abroad would not be taxed on the capital gains made, subject to the dual condition that:
– The sale was concluded at the latest on December 31st of the year following the year of the tax residence transfer (to another country); and
– The property was not placed at the disposal of a third party, whether for a fee or free of charge, between the transfer of residence and the sale.
Possible exemption of social levies on capital income
Currently, in France, non-residents are subject to social levies (including, in particular, CSG, CRDS and solidarity levy), at the rate of 17.2% on their French-earned income from property and capital gains on real estate.
The draft finance bill on social security for 2019 provides that the people affiliated with a mandatory social security system in another member state of the European Economic Area (EEA) or Switzerland will not be subject to CSG and CRDS in France on capital income but the solidarity levy, whose rate would be increased to 7.5 %, would remain due.
Nevertheless, that exemption would not concern people having established residence outside of the EEA or Switzerland, and who would therefore remain subject to social charges in France on capital income.
Various changes in tax modalities of France-sourced income
The PLF 2019 provides for various measures aimed at bringing the tax system on non-resident income closer in line with the system applied to tax residents in France.
First of all, French-earned salaries, pensions and life annuity rents paid to non-residents are currently subject to a specific deduction at source, partially discharging tax on income, as specified in Article 182A of the French Tax Code (CGI).
As from January 1, 2020, that deduction at source would be eliminated and replaced by a flat, non-discharging deduction at source calculated by applying the tax rate by default used for the withholding tax on resident income.
In addition, starting with taxes on income earned in 2018, the minimum tax rate applicable to France-sourced income of non-residents will rise:
– From 20% to 30% in Metropolitan France; and
– From 14.4% to 25% for income whose source is in the French Overseas Departments (DOM).
Of course, taxpayers can still request the application of the average tax rate to their France-sourced income, resulting from the application of the progressive tax brackets to the whole of their foreign- and France-sourced income, if it is lower than the minimum rate mentioned above.
Lastly, the PLF 2019 provides that, starting with taxes on 2018 income, non-residents can deduct the alimony paid out, on condition that it is taxed in France and that it has not already entitled the taxpayer to a tax break in his Country of residence.
To be continued when voted on in late December…
Above and beyond potential protection by Copyrights, all graphics or designs can be protected by Design rights.
Any reproduction, without consent, of graphics or designs protected by design rights constitutes, as a matter of principle, an act of counterfeiting. Consequently, caution is required.
In two rulings on September 27, 2017 opposing the companies Nintendo and BigBen Interactive GmbH / BigBen Interactive SA, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) nevertheless laid down a strictly-regulated exception to the protection of designs.
The company Nintendo filed a counterfeit claim against the video game accessory manufacturer, BigBen Interactive, who was reproducing, for the purpose of selling its products, images of Nintendo console accessories protected by design rights.
The Court of Justice took a chunk out of rights holders’ monopoly by judging that a design could lawfully be reproduced without prior consent from the holder if that reproduction was an illustration.
The images were considered illustrative insofar as they allowed to demonstrate the joint use of the BigBen Interactive and Nintendo products to consumers.
Nonetheless, this lawful reproduction is subject to conditions.
The Court of Justice requires that the reproduction of the design be made within the framework of loyal competition and that it not threaten the economic balance of its holder. Moreover, it must be possible to identify the holder of the design reproduced.
Lastly, caution is required since, although the Court of Justice’s interpretation seems to reduce the scope of protection for Community Designs, the exception is nonetheless subject to conditions and may be limited by potential cumulative protection by Copyright.
European Court of Justice, September 27, 2017, C24/16 and C-25/16, EU:C:2017:724, Nintendo / BigBen Interactive GmbH and BigBen Interactive SA.
On October 9, 2018, the French National Assembly adopted, at first reading, the PACTE bill (Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation).
Among the many measures in the bill, whose objective is to lower the obligations that weigh on companies, Article 55 is aimed at reinforcing the framework of foreign investments in France.
The current regime
Foreign investments in France are free as a matter of principle (Article L.151-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code). Nevertheless, investments in certain sectors, considered strategic, are subject to prior authorisation from the Minister of Economy (Article L.151-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code).
The authorisation procedure, established in 2005 and strengthened in 2014, currently concerns investments that foreigners wish to make in France and which might infringe upon public order, public security or the interests of national defence.
Initially, the list of sectors was narrow: gambling, private security, counterterrorism, equipment designed for wiretapping, IT security, companies entrusted with national defence secrets, weapons trade, companies dealing with the Defence Ministry.
However, in 2014, the list of sectors concerned was extended to also target energy and water supply, transportation and electronic communications networks, vital infrastructures and facilities as defined by the Defence Code, as well as the public health sector.
In the abovementioned sectors, a foreign investor must make a request to the Minister of Economy for an authorisation to invest. Once the audit has been made, the Minister can: (i) authorise the investment, (ii) deny the investment, if the investor is likely to commit a series of offences or if the investment risks infringing on national interests, or (iii) authorise the investment subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring that the planned investment does not infringe on national interests.
In the event that the investor does not comply with the Minister’s decision, the latter may request the investor “not to follow through with the operation, to modify it or to re-establish the former situation at the investor’s expense“.
If that demand is not complied with, financial sanctions may be imposed, the amount of which may go up to “twice the amount of the irregular investment“.
The PACTE bill
The two main changes foreseen by the PACTE bill are as follows:
- 1. Extension of the business sectors concerned so as to better protect promising sectors. The list of activities would thus be extended to semi-conductors, the space industry, drones, and if related to national security, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, robotics and mass data storage.
- 2. Stronger sanctions. The Minister will have a wider, more calibrated range of sanctions since he will be able, in the event of non-compliance with his decision and the conditions imposed on the investment, to define additional conditions not provided in the initial agreement or even order the investor to honour his commitments, subject to penalties. The Minister will also be able to take protective measures such as the suspension of voting rights or the investor’s right to receive dividends, or he can appoint an agent commissioned to ensure the protection of national interests within the company.
The regime of financial sanctions will also be modified. The fine determined by the Minister will not be able to exceed the highest of the following amounts: twice the amount of the irregular investment, 10% of the target company’s yearly turnover, €1 million for individuals and €5 million for legal entities.
The PACTE bill will be examined by a Senate committee as from January 2019. We will keep you informed of the conditions for the effective implementation of the new measures having a direct impact on foreign take-over operations of a French company.
Decision by the Social Chamber of the French Supreme Court dated September 12, 2018
(Cass. Soc. 12 September 2018, n° 16-11.690)
As per a September 12, 2018 decision, the French Supreme Court (called “Cour de cassation”) answered the following question: Can an employee who denigrates his/her employer in a limited and closed group on Facebook be dismissed for gross misconduct ?
In the case at hand, an employee created a closed group on Facebook entitled “Extermination des Directrices chieuses” (Extermination of Crappy Directors) in which the employee made insulting and threatening remarks about her immediate supervisor. Upon becoming aware of the remarks, the employer dismissed the employee for gross misconduct.
The Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal decision, ruling that the dismissal was without good and sufficient cause, and therefore unjustified, as the remarks had been posted in a closed group to a limited number of people. In fact, the group had been set up by the employee and could only be accessed by people she had authorised, namely 14 people. As such, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a private conversation.
The Supreme Court clearly made a distinction between public remarks (open groups, large number of people) and private remarks (closed group, limited number of people) to justify a dismissal for gross misconduct.
This decision deserves credit for dispelling certain doubts that existed before, since this is the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on the legitimate character of a disciplinary dismissal for a cause such as this one. However, it gives rise to other questions.
Indeed, as the Supreme Court retained two cumulative conditions, both the closed group and the limited number of people, it is logical to wonder if the decision would have been the same if the closed group had been made up of a large number of members or if the group members had been the company’s employees.
For the past several months, French legislators (deputies) have sought to implement a tax break on transfers by gift or inheritance.
To this end, last May, legislators introduced a bill mainly aimed at increasing the tax allowance beyond which an inheritance or a gift is taxed, raising it from €100,000 to €159,325.
Those legislators also proposed to apply tax allowances every 10 years instead of every 15 years as is currently the case in effect.
Although the bill has not been voted on, it now seems to have little chance of being passed.
In answering two ministerial questions raised, the French Government expressed its intention of not changing those tax rules.
As per the increase of the current €100,000-allowance, the Ministry of Economy and Finance considers that the amount is “very close to the median net assets of all households, which, according to the INSEE, reached €113,900 per household in early 2015” and “that, on its own, it results in a very large majority of transfers being tax exempt“.
As for the time period related to past gifts, the Ministry considers that the current time period is adequate, and as a reminder points out that “contrary to the sentiment expressed by (public) opinion, over three-fourths of inheritances are exempt from the payment of gift or inheritance tax.”
It is therefore in the best interest of taxpayers with a substantial estate to plan the transfer of their assets to their descendants in advance.