Internal HR investigations in France are usually triggered by any matter that could impact compliance, workplace integrity, or employee wellbeing. Investigations arise when facts or allegations suggest potential breaches of internal rules, statutory obligations, or workplace standards.

Common triggers include:

• employee complaints or whistle-blowing reports regarding harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or other misconduct;
• ethical or compliance concerns, such as fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest, misappropriation of company assets, or violations of data protection rules;
• incidents affecting workplace safety or integrity, including health and safety breaches or behaviour that could undermine the work environment; and
• regulatory or legal risks that could expose the company to civil, criminal, or administrative liability.

A key example under French law concerns allegations of harassment or discrimination. Employers have a legal duty to act promptly and take appropriate measures. Under Article L.4121-1 of the French Labour Code, employers must take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and protect the physical and mental health of workers. This includes:

• preventing harassment (L.1152-4); and
• preventing, stopping, and sanctioning sexual harassment (L.1153-5).

Since the 2016 reform, an employer’s liability for harassment can be limited if the employer demonstrates that it has implemented all preventive measures and that it took immediate action once aware of allegations (Cass. Soc., 1 June 2016, No 14-19.702).

Conducting an internal investigation promptly and impartially is considered a key measure for assessing the validity of such allegations and implementing corrective actions, helping to mitigate potential legal exposure.

HR internal investigations in France can be conducted on the basis of legal obligations, best practice considerations, or the employer’s discretionary powers. These three categories determine whether an investigation is mandatory, recommended, or optional, depending on the circumstances.

Legal Obligations to Conduct an Investigation

Certain situations require the employer to carry out an internal investigation, as follows.

• Social and Economic Committee (Comité Social et Économique – CSE) alerts: A member of the CSE may exercise a right of alert regarding breaches of individual rights (Articles L.2312-5 and L.2312-59) or in the event of serious and imminent danger (Articles L.2312-5, L.2312-60, and L.4132-1 et seq).
• Whistle-blowing reports: Reception of a report via a professional alert system established under Law No 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 (Sapin II), applicable to companies with at least 50 employees.

Non-Mandatory But Strongly Recommended Investigations

Outside these specific obligations, there is generally no statutory requirement to open an internal investigation, including in harassment cases. Recent case law confirms that:

• an employee may be dismissed for harassment without a prior internal investigation (Cass. Soc., 14 February 2024, No 22-14.385); and
• an employer does not breach its health and safety obligations if it has implemented sufficient measures to protect the employee, even without conducting an internal investigation (Cass. Soc., 12 June 2024, No 23-13.975).

However, conducting an internal investigation is strongly recommended, particularly in cases of alleged harassment, due to:

• the employer’s health and safety obligations (Article L.4121-1 Labour Code);
• jurisprudence requiring immediate measures to stop harassment (Cass. Soc., 1 June 2016, No 14-19.702);
• the National Interprofessional Agreement of 26 March 2010, which provides that complaints should be followed by an investigation;
• case law indicating prompt investigation is appropriate when an employee alleges being a victim or witness of harassment (Cass. Soc., 29 June 2011, No 09-70.902); and
• the fact that such investigations also serve as evidence regarding measures taken to stop harassment and the justification for any disciplinary action against the alleged perpetrator.

Employer Discretion to Conduct an Investigation

Outside these circumstances, the employer may open an investigation at its discretion, under its management and disciplinary powers, or to protect the company’s assets and interests.

In France, employers are not legally required to establish dedicated reporting channels for employees.

Article 4.2 of the National Interprofessional Agreement of 26 March 2010 recommends that an appropriate procedure can be implemented to identify, understand, and address harassment and workplace violence.

In practice, in the absence of a statutory framework, employees raise concerns through a variety of channels, including verbally, in writing, by email, or via the company’s internal messaging system. Reports may be made to different recipients, such as colleagues, line managers, HR representatives, senior management, employee representatives, or occupational health doctors.

Employees may submit reports anonymously; however, taking immediate and effective action can be more challenging when the report is anonymous.

Regardless of the channel used, once the employer becomes aware of a concern, they must act promptly, which typically includes initiating an internal investigation if appropriate.

In France, the rules regarding who should conduct an internal HR investigation depend on the circumstances.

When a report originates from a member of the CSE under their right of alert, the employer must conduct the investigation with that CSE member (Article L.2312-59 Labour Code). Outside this legal requirement, the employer may conduct the investigation internally or appoint an external investigator, as there are no statutory rules on the composition of the investigation team.

The French Ministry of Labour recommends ensuring a plurality of perspectives. The investigation may be conducted jointly by a management representative and an employee representative. If the company has no employee representatives, a volunteer employee may be selected. Care should be taken not to assign the investigation to employees working in the same department as the alleged victim or perpetrator, to their direct supervisors, or to anyone whose involvement could compromise the investigation’s impartiality (Ministry of Labour Guide, 8 March 2019).

Case law provides further guidance. In some instances, the investigation may be conducted solely by the HR Director (Cass. Soc., 1 June 2022, No 20-22.058) or by a psychologist specialised in psychosocial risks, even if not approved by the Labour Inspectorate (CA Agen, 9 January 2024, No 22/00827). Such investigations may, however, be more easily contested in legal proceedings.

Conversely, the French Supreme Court has ruled that assigning an internal investigation to an employee who is in conflict with the individual concerned constitutes a breach of the employer’s health and safety obligations (Cass. Soc., 6 July 2022, No 21-13.631).

In France, an internal HR investigation must be conducted in certain circumstances, including:

• when a member of the CSE exercises their right of alert regarding breaches of individual rights (Articles L.2312-5 and L.2312-59 Labour Code) or in the event of a serious and imminent danger (Articles L.2312-5, L.2312-60, and L.4132-1 et seq); and
• when a report is made through a professional alert system established under Law No 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 (Sapin II), applicable to companies with at least 50 employees.

Failure to conduct an investigation in these circumstances may engage the employer’s liability for breach of their health and safety obligations, and, if the conditions are met, could give rise to claims of gross negligence.

In France, there are certain circumstances in which an internal HR investigation may not be carried out, either temporarily or at all, as follows.

• Interference with ongoing criminal proceedings: An internal investigation may be suspended or limited if it risks interfering with a parallel criminal investigation. A draft law of 29 October 2024 (Bill No 514) is currently under review to regulate internal investigations conducted alongside criminal proceedings.
• Potential breach of fundamental rights or data protection rules: Investigations must respect employees’ fundamental rights and comply with personal data protection laws.
• Use of unfair or inappropriate methods: Investigations must be conducted fairly; any improper investigative method could invalidate the process.

The necessity of an internal investigation also depends on the circumstances.

• An internal investigation should only be initiated if the report requires further investigation (Framework Decision No 2025-019, 5 February 2025).
• If the employer already has sufficient knowledge of the facts and the investigation would not provide additional information, immediate protective measures may be taken and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against the alleged perpetrator.
• In most cases of harassment or discrimination, an internal investigation remains necessary, as the facts are often complex and require careful examination.

In cases where an internal HR investigation is neither legally required nor prohibited, the employer must assess whether it is appropriate to proceed.

Factors that may inform this decision include:

• the severity and complexity of the alleged facts;
• potential legal risks, such as exposure to employment tribunal claims;
• the need to gather evidence in order to:
1. establish the veracity of the reported facts; and
2. initiate disciplinary proceedings against the alleged perpetrator;
• the potential impact on the workplace climate; and
• compliance with applicable internal procedures related to the reported issue.

Where there is uncertainty about whether to initiate an internal investigation, legal counsel can advise the employer on the appropriate course of action.

It is generally recommended than an internal investigation be opened promptly upon becoming aware of potential harassment or misconduct, as this:

• allows the employer to clarify the facts and circumstances of the report;
• reinforces the legitimacy of any measures taken following the investigation; and
• protects the employer against allegations of failing to act appropriately.

Under French law, neither statute nor case law requires the employer to inform the respondent that an internal investigation is being initiated in cases of harassment.

The French Supreme Court has clarified that an employer is obliged to conduct an impartial investigation when allegations of moral harassment are made, and that such an investigation may be conducted without the respondent’s knowledge without constituting an unfair method of evidence (Cass. Soc., 17 March 2021, No 18-25.597).

Nonetheless, except where informing the respondent would pose a clear risk of pressure on alleged victims or witnesses, it is generally advisable to notify the respondent of the investigation. Doing so helps to uphold the principle of contradictory proceedings and ensures procedural fairness.

There is no legal obligation for the reporter to provide information about whether an investigation will be opened or on its progress. In practice, however, employers may choose to inform the reporter, particularly to reassure them that the report has been taken seriously and is being addressed. Any such communication should be balanced carefully to protect confidentiality and avoid prejudicing the investigation.

In France, the initiation of an internal HR investigation does not generally need to be communicated to the authorities, except where the law requires reporting.

Mandatory reporting applies in certain serious situations, including:

• crimes such as rape, murder, or terrorism;
• violence, abuse, or sexual assault against minors or vulnerable persons; and
• child pornography.

In these cases, the employer must notify the relevant judicial authorities, such as the police, gendarmerie, or public prosecutor. The information typically provided includes:

• the identity of the victim(s), if known;
• the identity of the alleged perpetrator, if known;
• a description of the alleged facts and circumstances; and
• any evidence or documentation collected by the employer that is relevant to the case.

Outside of these legally mandated situations, communicating the opening of an internal investigation to the authorities is optional, and generally not recommended, in order to preserve confidentiality and ensure the proper conduct of the investigation.

In the context of an internal HR investigation, it is essential that the employer, investigators and all participants maintain strict discretion to protect the dignity and privacy of all individuals involved. Information collected during the investigation must remain confidential.

Although French law does not require parties to sign a separate confidentiality agreement or NDA, it is common practice and strongly recommended by the French Defender of Rights to have all interviewees and investigators acknowledge a confidentiality undertaking. This formalises the expectation of confidentiality and underscores its importance.

Even in the absence of a formal agreement, French law generally imposes a duty of confidentiality on participants in the investigation. Breach of this duty may expose employees or third parties to disciplinary measures or civil liability.

If confidentiality is violated, the employer may take appropriate action, which could include:

• disciplinary measures against employees who fail to maintain confidentiality; and
• seeking remedies under civil law if the disclosure causes harm to the company or other individuals involved in the investigation.

A preliminary assessment may be conducted to determine whether a full investigation is warranted.

Conversely, when the employer already has sufficiently precise and reliable knowledge of the facts, and a full investigation would not yield additional information, it may be more appropriate to immediately implement protective measures and consider whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

The French Supreme Court has confirmed that an employer can satisfy its health and safety obligations without conducting a full investigation, provided that appropriate and sufficient measures have been implemented (Cass. Soc., 12 June 2024, No 23-13.975).

In summary, a preliminary assessment is useful for evaluating whether a full investigation is warranted. A comprehensive investigation should be reserved for situations where an in-depth inquiry is necessary to establish the facts and seriousness of the allegations, particularly in cases of harassment or discrimination.

In an internal HR investigation, the key individuals typically interviewed include:

• the alleged victimand the respondent, even if either is on sick leave;
• witnesses, as well as any individual requesting to be interviewed or whose testimony is requested by the alleged victim or the respondent;
• direct supervisors or line managers; and
• potentially other relevant parties, such as the occupational health doctor or labour inspector, if their expertise is required.

Although the French Supreme Court does not mandate that the respondent be interviewed, both the Defender of Rights and the Ministry of Labour consider it essential to do so in order to uphold the principle of adversarial proceedings.

Direct confrontation between the alleged victim and the respondent is strongly discouraged due to potential psychosocial risks.

There is no fixed number of witnesses to be interviewed. The goal is not to interview all employees, but rather to speak with a sufficient number of individuals to obtain clear and objective information, allowing investigators to fully understand and analyse the situation.

Courts assess the value of an investigation without requiring that all employees be interviewed (Cass. Soc., 8 January 2020, No 18-20.151).

If the respondent refuses to participate in an investigation, they cannot be compelled to do so. It is, however, recommended to document in detail all summons and the refusal, as this refusal can be taken into account when analysing the facts.

The alleged victim may also decline to participate for various reasons, such as fear, trauma, or lack of trust. In such cases, the employer should note the refusal, continue the investigation by other means, and, where possible, offer alternatives (eg, accompanied interviews, written statements).

In general, it is advisable to systematically document all attempts to interview individuals, refusals, partial participation, and the reasons given, to demonstrate the employer’s diligence in conducting the investigation.

Interviews may be conducted remotely using secure platforms such as Teams or Zoom. The key requirement is that the confidentiality and integrity of the discussions be fully maintained.

Employers should ensure that participants are in a private setting where the conversation cannot be overheard and that any digital tools used comply with data protection and privacy standards.

While remote interviews are practical and increasingly common, care should be taken to preserve the same level of confidentiality and professionalism as in face-to-face meetings.

To ensure objectivity and impartiality, it is recommended that at least two investigators be appointed. Investigators must be completely neutral, with no personal or hierarchical connection to either the respondent or the alleged victim in order to avoid any conflict of interest or undue influence.

The French Defender of Rights recommends including at least one investigator with strong legal knowledge in workplace discrimination and experience in interview techniques. Investigations may be conducted internally or, in cases of a potential conflict of interest, by an external service provider.

The presence of a neutral third party during interviews may be advisable in certain situations to ensure fairness and transparency. Typical circumstances include:

• when the interviewee requests to be accompanied, for example by an employee representative, colleague, or other trusted individual; this can help the interviewee feel supported and encourage openness; or
• when internal company policies or procedures explicitly provide for third-party accompaniment during interviews.

While not legally required, involving a neutral observer can also enhance the credibility of the investigation, provide additional oversight, and help document that the interview was conducted fairly. Employers should ensure that any third party present maintains confidentiality and does not influence the substance of the interview.

Interviewees may be accompanied by a support person, such as an employee representative, interpreter, or lawyer, provided that the accompanying individual remains passive and does not intervene on behalf of the interviewee.

French law does not confer an absolute right to be accompanied by a support person or lawyer during an internal HR investigation. However, companies may allow accompaniment either as a matter of internal policy or in response to a specific request, particularly in sensitive or complex cases, to ensure the interviewee feels supported and to uphold the principle of procedural fairness.

Employers should make clear to all participants that the role of any accompanying person, including a lawyer, is limited to support and observation, without influencing the substance of the interview.

At the beginning of the interview, it is recommended that the interviewee be informed of the following:

• the confidentiality obligations applicable to them during the investigation;
• that all statements and information exchanged during the interview are strictly confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone outside those present;
• the relevant legal framework regarding moral harassment, sexual harassment, and discrimination, in order to provide context for the investigation;
• the context, purpose, and scope of the investigation, so that the interviewee understands the objectives of the interview;
• the possibility of being accompanied, if applicable under internal policies or legal requirements; and
• how their personal data will be processed in accordance with GDPR, including purposes, confidentiality measures, retention period, and authorised access.

At the end of the interview, it is recommended to inform the interviewee of:

• the next steps in the investigation, including, where possible, an estimated timeline;
• the continued obligation to maintain confidentiality following the interview; and
• the fact that a written summary of the interview will be prepared, reviewed, and signed for validation.

If an interviewee requests to stop the interview, their request must be respected immediately, and the interview should be suspended or terminated. It is essential to document in the interview record that the interviewee wished to stop, including, where appropriate, any reasons they provided for doing so. This ensures transparency and demonstrates that the employer has respected the interviewee’s rights while maintaining a clear record of the investigation.

In France, minutes of interviews are typically taken during an HR internal investigation. These should accurately and comprehensively reflect the content of the interview.

Key points regarding interview minutes include the following.

• Review and signature: Interviewees should have the opportunity to review the minutes to ensure their statements are correctly recorded. They are generally asked to sign the minutes to acknowledge their accuracy.
• Summarised minutes: While minutes should be as accurate as possible, summarised minutes may be used in practice, provided they faithfully capture the substance of the interview.
• Who prepares the minutes: It is not necessary for an external party to draft the minutes. One of the investigators can prepare them, provided impartiality and accuracy are maintained. If the investigation is outsourced, the external provider usually prepares the minutes.
• Impartiality and accuracy: Whether prepared internally or externally, the minutes must preserve the integrity of the interview process and ensure that the content can be relied upon for any subsequent actions, including disciplinary or legal proceedings.

Recording of interviews is possible in France, but only with the consent of all participants. It is not standard practice in internal HR investigations, as it may discourage interviewees from speaking freely.

If an interview is recorded, a transcript may be produced. Its use and distribution must be strictly controlled in accordance with confidentiality obligations. Typically, transcripts are shared only with the investigators and, if necessary, the legal counsel involved in the investigation.

To ensure that interviews are not recorded without authorisation, including in remote settings (eg, via Teams or Zoom), it is recommended to clearly inform all participants at the start of the interview that recording is prohibited and to reiterate the confidentiality requirements. Employers should also consider disabling any recording features on the digital platforms used.

In principle, evidence must be collected in a lawful and fair manner. This may include, for example, emails, written statements, recordings, or testimony from other employees. Unfair or improper methods of obtaining evidence are generally excluded.

However, the French Defender of Rights has acknowledged that certain evidence obtained unfairly (such as clandestine recordings) may be considered if it is indispensable to establishing the truth, and if the intrusion into the privacy of the individuals concerned is strictly proportionate to the purpose pursued.

French case law similarly allows evidence obtained unlawfully or unfairly to be submitted in court, provided it is essential to exercising the right to evidence and does not disproportionately harm the interests of the opposing party (Cass. ass. plén., 22 December 2023, No 20-20.648).

Investigators must therefore carefully balance these competing interests when deciding whether to admit or rely on evidence obtained through potentially unfair means.

Under French law, employers have a general duty of security (obligation de sécurité) under Article L. 4121-1 of the Labour Code, which requires them to take all necessary measures to protect employees’ health and safety. This obligation applies throughout the internal investigation and includes protecting the reporter from potential retaliation, pressure, or intimidation.

Mandatory and Recommended Protective Measures

Employers must take appropriate steps to ensure the reporter can continue working safely during the investigation. In practice, this may include the following.

• Immediate referral to the occupational physician, who may recommend adjustments to duties, working hours, or workspace.
• Provisional organisational measures designed to avoid direct contact between the reporter and the respondent. These may involve:
• temporary leave for the respondent with full pay (Cass. soc., 8 March 2017, No 15-23.503);
• temporary reassignment of the respondent to a different team or role (Cass. soc., 20 December 2006, No 04-46.051); or
• placing the respondent on remote working arrangements (Defender of rights, framework decision No 2025-019, 5 February 2025).

These measures do not constitute disciplinary sanctions. They are justified exclusively by the employer’s duty to ensure a safe working environment and to prevent potential interference with the investigation.

Priority Given to Measures Affecting the Respondent

The Defender of Rights recommends that protective measures should, as a matter of priority, impact the respondent, not the reporter. Adjusting the reporter’s working conditions – unless strictly necessary and carried out with their explicit consent – may be seen as:

• stigmatising the potential victim; or
• constituting unlawful retaliation, prohibited by Articles L.1152-2 and L.1153-2 of the Labour Code.

The French Supreme Court has held an employer liable where, despite sanctioning the harasser, the employer proposed that the victim change departments (Cass. soc., 17 February 2021, No 19-18.149).

Legal Consequences of Taking (or Not Taking) Protective Measures

• If the employer fails to take protective measures, it may be held liable for breach of their obligation of security. This can lead to damages, constructive dismissal claims, or recognition of workplace harassment.

• If the employer takes protective measures inappropriately, measures affecting the reporter without necessity or consent are at risk of risk being characterised as retaliation or discriminatory treatment, exposing the employer to significant legal liability.

Under French law, employers have a duty to protect all employees, including the respondent, throughout an internal investigation. This obligation stems from the employer’s general duty of security above mentioned and from the need to respect the respondent’s fundamental rights, including dignity, privacy, and the presumption of innocence.

Measures That Must or May Be Taken to Protect the Respondent

Employers should implement measures designed to preserve the respondent’s rights and prevent any undue harm resulting from the investigation.

Key measures include the following.

• Respecting the presumption of innocence and avoiding any premature characterisation of the facts.
• Preserving the respondent’s dignity and reputation, for example by:
1. ensuring the strict confidentiality of the investigation;
2. preventing disclosures to third parties not involved in the process; or
3. reminding all participants of their duty of discretion. Article 4.2 of the National Interprofessional Agreement (ANI) of 26 March 2010 explicitly states that: “It is in everyone’s interest to act with the necessary discretion to protect the dignity and privacy of each person. No information, other than anonymised information, should be disclosed to parties not involved in the matter”.

• Protecting the respondent’s health, including:
1. providing contact details for the occupational physician if the investigation is causing distress or impacting the respondent’s wellbeing; and
2. implementing temporary organisational measures (eg, changes in reporting lines or remote working) where appropriate, provided they do not amount to punitive treatment.

These measures must remain strictly necessary and proportionate, to avoid creating the impression of preferential treatment.

Internal Communication, Where Necessary

If rumours or speculation circulate within the organisation, the employer may issue a limited internal communication. The communication should remain neutral and factual, indicating that:

• an internal investigation is ongoing;
• discretion is required to maintain the integrity of the investigation; and
• any conclusions will be drawn only at the end of the process.

This type of communication helps protect the respondent from reputational harm while preserving the fairness and confidentiality of the process.

Legal Risks if the Employer Does Not Protect the Respondent

Failure to take appropriate measures may expose the employer to:

• liability for breach of its obligation to protect the respondent’s physical or mental health;
• claims for moral harassment if rumours, hostility, or stigmatisation develop in the workplace and the employer remains passive; and
• claims for violation of privacy or dignity.

Legal Risks if the Employer Takes Protective Measures Improperly

If measures taken to protect the respondent are disproportionate, unjustified by the needs of the investigation, or perceived as shielding the respondent, then the employer may be accused of:

• lack of impartiality;
• obstructing the investigation; or
• favouring the respondent, which could undermine the credibility of the process and potentially expose the employer to liability vis-à-vis the reporter.

The primary purpose of an internal HR investigation is to determine whether the alleged conduct actually occurred. Accordingly, it is generally inadvisable to impose disciplinary measures prior to the conclusion of the investigation and the issuance of the investigation report.

Risks of premature disciplinary action include:

• imposing a sanction for conduct that ultimately proves unfounded;
• exposure to claims by the employee for unjustified disciplinary measures; and
• potential re-qualification of a dismissal as deprived of real and serious cause.

In this regard, the French Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary sanction imposed prematurely, without awaiting the outcome of the disciplinary procedure, constitutes a breach of the employer’s duty of protection (Cass. Soc., 6 July 2022, No 21-13.631).

However, it is possible, and advisable, to implement precautionary measures during the course of an internal investigation to protect the alleged victim, while avoiding premature disciplinary action against the respondent (see 4.1 Protection of the Reporter).

It is worth noting that an internal investigation should only be initiated if the report or complaint requires further examination. If the employer already possesses sufficient evidence demonstrating the reality and extent of the alleged misconduct, and this justifies disciplinary action, the disciplinary procedure should be initiated promptly, particularly in light of the statutory limitation period for such misconduct.

As soon as a potential risk comes to the employer’s attention, the employer is obliged to take all necessary measures to protect the health and safety of all employees, including the alleged victim, the respondent, and other staff members.

Consequently, the precautionary measures described above to protect the alleged victim may also be applied to safeguard other employees.

Such measures should be implemented with due consideration of the risk that the alleged conduct could recur and affect other employees during the course of the investigation.

The employer must strike a careful balance to preserve the health, safety, and rights of each employee. Failure to take appropriate protective measures could expose the employer to liability for breach of its general duty of security under French labour law. Conversely, protective measures should be proportionate and non-punitive, as overly restrictive actions may themselves give rise to claims by the employee affected.

French labour law does not prescribe a specific procedure for internal HR investigations. However, the French Defender of Rights has issued general recommendations for investigations following reports of discrimination or harassment (Decision No 2025-019, 5 February 2025).

Internal investigations should comply with four principles, as follows.

• Impartiality, independence, and transparency: All parties must receive fair and impartial treatment (Guide ministère du travail, 8 March 2019). Failure to comply can result in liability, including damages for conducting a biased investigation (Cass. Soc., 9 February 2012, No 10-26.123).
• Confidentiality and privacy: Investigators must protect the dignity and privacy of all involved, maintaining confidentiality of information disclosed (Guide ministère du travail, 8 March 2019; Article 4.2, ANI of 26 March 2010).
• Adversarial principle: Employees have the right to know the allegations against them and to present their side. Participation cannot be compelled; refusals should be documented, and written statements may be accepted. The right to remain silent should be recorded in the interview minutes.
• Presumption of innocence: Respondents must be treated as presumed innocent throughout the investigation.

Additional procedural considerations are as follows.

• Assistance: No statutory right to a lawyer exists in internal investigations, but employers are advised to allow legal assistance upon request (Cass. Soc., 22 March 2016, No 15-10.503).
• Anonymity: Employees may request anonymity, similar to whistle-blower protections. Anonymised testimony may be admissible if essential and disclosed to the respondent (Cass. Soc., 19 March 2025, No 23-19.154).
• Recording: Interviews may be recorded with consent, but written transcripts by a designated person are recommended to reduce stress. If requested by the employee, recording should be allowed.

Failure to respect these safeguards may result in challenges to findings, liability for breach of privacy or fairness, or reduced evidentiary value in subsequent disciplinary or judicial proceedings.

Where a company has implemented specific internal procedures for conducting HR investigations, these procedures must be respected (framework decision No 2025-019, 5 February 2025).

Such procedures may take the form of:

• charters;
• prevention and action plans; and
• guides or methodologies for conducting internal investigations.

Unlike the statutory internal regulations (règlement intérieur), which must be formally filed with the labour inspectorate and the employment tribunal, charters or guides relating to internal investigation procedures do not have normative force.

However, failure to comply with established internal investigation procedures may undermine the credibility of the investigation. In litigation, courts will assess whether the alleged procedural breach materially affects the evidentiary value of the investigation.

It should be noted that internal investigations and their conclusions do not bind the judge, who will independently determine the probative value of the findings (Cass. Soc., 29 June 2022, No 21-11.437).

Under French labour law, the burden of proof in internal investigations and related disputes depends on the type of allegation. Generally, the employee must provide facts that give rise to a presumption of wrongdoing. Once such facts are presented, it is for the employer or alleged wrongdoer to demonstrate that the conduct did not constitute misconduct and that any related decisions were justified by objective, non-discriminatory or non-harassing reasons (Article L1154-1, French Labour Code).

The degree of proof required is therefore not “beyond reasonable doubt”, as in criminal cases, but rather a preponderance of evidence or sufficient factual basis to raise a presumption. This standard applies both in litigation and at the stage of internal investigations, where the aim is to collect elements that reasonably suggest the alleged misconduct occurred, rather than irrefutable proof (Decision No 2024-105, 11 July 2024).

Illustrative examples of evidence that may support a presumption include witness statements, medical certificates, and emails or text messages. In contrast, mere rumours or hearsay alone are insufficient (Cass. Soc., 9 October 2013, No 12-22.288).

Under French law, neither statute nor case law sets a specific point at which an internal HR investigation must be concluded.

In practice, an investigation may be closed once all relevant information has been collected (interviews, documents, data) and the investigator has sufficient evidence to:

• verify the allegations made by the reporter;
• identify any potential violations of legal rules concerning harassment or discrimination; and
• formulate a reasoned conclusion.

An investigation may also be closed prematurely in certain circumstances, including when:

• no credible evidence can be obtained despite reasonable efforts;
• the complainant withdraws their complaint and no compelling reason exists to continue;
• the co-operation of the parties is insufficient to establish the facts;
• an external procedure (judicial or police) renders further investigation unnecessary; or
• the individuals involved leave the company.

Once the decision to conclude/abandon an HR internal investigation has been made, it is recommended that both the reporter and the respondent be informed of the closure. The conclusions of the investigation should subsequently be communicated to them.

Where employee representatives exist within the company, the full report or a summary may also be presented to the members of the CSE during an extraordinary meeting convened for this purpose.

French case law confirms that an employer is not required to disclose the full investigation report to the disciplinary committee. It is sufficient to provide information that is sufficiently detailed to allow for a meaningful and fair discussion (Cass. Soc., 27 November 2024, No 23-11.720). This approach may similarly be applied when sharing findings with CSE members.

There are no legal rules prescribing a specific form for concluding an internal HR investigation. In practice, it is standard to formalise the conclusions in a written report.

Preparing a written report is considered essential, as it:

• ensures a clear record of the investigation and the evidence collected;
• provides supporting evidence in the event of a dispute or litigation, including regarding the findings of fault and the limitation period for disciplinary action; and
• supports any disciplinary or corrective measures that may be taken.

At the conclusion of an internal HR investigation, it is the responsibility of the employer, as the disciplinary authority, to evaluate the facts and determine whether the allegations constitute harassment, discrimination, or other violations of company policy or law.

The French Defender of Rights emphasises that the employer must ensure that the findings do not minimise the facts, blame the alleged victim, or justify discriminatory remarks on the grounds of humour or context.

Written reports are typically used to formalise the investigation. While there is no legal requirement specifying the exact content, such reports generally include:

• a summary of the allegations received;
• the context, purpose, and scope of the investigation;
• details of the investigative methodology, including who was interviewed and which documents or evidence were reviewed;
• summaries of interviews or other fact-finding activities;
• the findings of the investigation, including the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the evidence collected;
• conclusions regarding whether the allegations are substantiated, partially substantiated, or unsubstantiated;
• suggested next steps or recommendations, which may include disciplinary or corrective measures; and
• any limitations encountered during the investigation, such as witnesses refusing to participate.

Such reports ensure transparency, demonstrate due diligence, and provide a defensible record of the employer’s actions in the event of legal proceedings. Including recommended next steps is common practice and helps guide the employer in implementing appropriate remedial or disciplinary actions following the investigation.

In practice, it is recommended that employers communicate only the conclusions of the internal HR investigation to the parties involved, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the testimony provided and the anonymity of any witnesses interviewed.

French law does not grant parties a right to receive the full written investigation report. Consequently, the employer is not obliged to share the complete report with either the reporter or the respondent.

In practice, employers typically provide a summary of the findings or the outcome relevant to the individuals concerned, without disclosing sensitive details about other witnesses or internal deliberations. This approach balances transparency with the need to protect confidentiality and ensure procedural fairness.

In France, there is no general obligation to communicate the conclusions of an internal HR investigation to the authorities, particularly because the reported matters usually do not directly involve the employer as a victim.

However, the law requires certain serious matters be reported as soon as they come to the attention of any individual, such as:

• crimes whose reporting may prevent or limit their effects, or prevent further offences (eg, murder, rape, torture, terrorism); and
• abuse, mistreatment, or sexual assault against minors or vulnerable individuals (for example, assault on a pregnant colleague or an employee accessing child pornography).

In these cases, the employer should provide the authorities with the established facts and any information necessary for them to take appropriate action.

Failure to comply with these reporting obligations may result in criminal sanctions, including up to three years’ imprisonment and fines of up to EUR45,000 (Articles 434 1 and 434 3 of the French Criminal Code).

In practice, limiting communication of the conclusions of an internal HR investigation to the reporter, the respondent, and, where applicable, members of the CSE is generally recommended.

Information shared is usually confined to the conclusions themselves and any resulting measures, without disclosing the identities of witnesses or other confidential details, in order to preserve privacy and maintain the integrity of the investigative process. Communication to other team members or colleagues is typically avoided to prevent gossip, retaliation, or breaches of confidentiality.

If the allegations are substantiated, the employer may impose disciplinary measures on the respondent. The sanction must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, taking into account the employee’s disciplinary history. Where harassment or discrimination is confirmed, French case law supports dismissal for serious misconduct (faute grave) of the employee responsible.

If the allegations are not substantiated, the employer generally does not take disciplinary action against the respondent. However, if the reporter acted in bad faith or knowingly made false allegations, the employer may consider proportionate disciplinary measures against the reporter.

In all cases, under Article L.1332-4 of the French Labour Code, any disciplinary sanction must be imposed within two months from the date the employer becomes aware of the facts – ie, from the closure of the investigation.

Before taking any action, the employer should assess whether additional investigations (or counter-investigations) are necessary, particularly if disputes remain regarding the findings. This ensures procedural fairness and helps reduce the risk of legal challenges.

In practice, even when an internal HR investigation does not substantiate allegations of harassment, there may still be ongoing tensions or interpersonal conflict between the reporter and the respondent.

Employers typically implement measures aimed at restoring a positive work environment and preventing further issues. Such measures may include:

• mediation between the parties to facilitate dialogue and resolve misunderstandings;
• support, coaching, or training for managers to strengthen conflict management and improve team dynamics;
• organisational or team-building initiatives to reinforce collaboration and cohesion; and
• enhanced monitoring or follow-up to ensure the workplace climate remains constructive.

These measures are often recommended regardless of whether the allegations are substantiated, as they help maintain a respectful and safe work environment, reduce the risk of future disputes, and demonstrate the employer’s proactive approach to managing workplace relations.

Under French law and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), an employer is permitted to collect personal data for the purpose of an internal HR investigation, subject to strict limitations.

Personal data collected must:

• be processed for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes; and
• not be further processed in a manner incompatible with those purposes (Article 5(b) GDPR).

The lawfulness of data processing must be based on at least one of the legal grounds provided under Article 6 GDPR. In the context of an internal HR investigation, two bases are typically applicable, as follows.

• Compliance with a legal obligation – eg, when the investigation is conducted following a mandatory whistle-blowing report or to comply with the employer’s health and safety obligations.
• Legitimate interest – this is justified when the data subject could reasonably expect, at the time of data collection, that their personal data would be processed for a given purpose. As an example, preventing fraud or misconduct may constitute a legitimate interest.

All data collection and processing must be strictly necessary, proportionate, and transparent. Personal data should be secured and retained only for the duration required to complete the investigation.

Under the GDPR, when the processing of personal data is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, the data controller must carry out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) prior to processing.

An internal HR investigation, which aims to determine whether legal or regulatory violations have occurred and whether disciplinary or judicial action is warranted, constitutes high-risk processing and should therefore be preceded by a DPIA.

The French Data Protection Authority (CNIL), in its publication of 11 October 2018, provides an indicative list of processing operations requiring a DPIA, including the management of whistle-blowing reports and the internal investigations arising from them.

Furthermore, as interviews conducted during the investigation involve the collection and processing of personal data, Article 13 of the GDPR requires that interviewees be provided with a privacy notice that specifies, at a minimum:

• the identity and contact details of the data controller;
• the purposes and legal basis of the processing; and
• the retention period for the data and the rights of the individuals concerned (access, rectification, objection, etc).

In practice, these measures ensure the transparency and lawfulness of data collection and processing during an internal investigation, while mitigating risks for both the company and the individuals involved.

Under Article 15 of the GDPR, any current or former employee, upon verifying their identity, has the right to request access to all personal data concerning them held by their employer or former employer.

This right includes, in particular:

• the purposes of the processing;
• the recipients of the data; and
• the retention period of the data.

However, this right of access is not absolute. The employer may limit disclosure of certain information to protect:

• the privacy rights of third parties;
• the company’s trade secrets; and
• the confidentiality of correspondence.

In the context of an internal HR investigation, it is generally possible to refuse access to information where disclosure would compromise the confidentiality of individuals interviewed during the investigation, including the alleged victim, the respondent, or witnesses.

In any event, any access granted should be proportionate to the requesting employee’s rights while ensuring compliance with confidentiality obligations and legal data protection requirements.

AI tools may be used in the context of internal investigations in France, but their use remains limited in practice. When they are used, it is generally as support tools to facilitate the review and analysis of large datasets (eg, emails, documents, messaging records), assist with keyword searches, or identify patterns or anomalies that may be relevant to the investigation.

However, any use of AI must remain strictly proportionate, human-supervised and compliant with the GDPR, particularly with regard to transparency, data minimisation, accuracy and security. Employers must ensure that data processed by AI tools remains confidential and is not transferred outside the EU without appropriate safeguards.

AI also raises specific data-protection considerations, including:

• the risk of profiling or automated decision-making, which is prohibited unless strict GDPR conditions are met;
• the need to ensure that algorithms do not introduce bias that could affect the fairness of the investigation; and
• the obligation to inform employees that their data may be processed by AI tools and to document the legal basis for such processing.

In all cases, AI cannot replace human judgment. Findings must be reviewed, validated and contextualised by the investigator before being relied upon.

France provides specific whistle-blower protections under Law No 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 (“Sapin II”), further strengthened by the “Waserman” Law of 21 March 2022.

Definition: A whistle-blower is defined as a natural person who, in good faith and without direct financial gain, reports or discloses information regarding a crime, offence, threat, or harm to the public interest; a violation or attempted concealment of a violation of international commitments ratified by France, EU law, national law, or regulation (Article 6, Sapin II).

Who is protected:

• the whistle-blower themselves;
• facilitators who assist the whistle-blower;
• individuals linked to the whistle-blower who may face retaliation; and
• legal entities controlled by or working with the whistle-blower in a professional context (Article 6-1, Sapin II).

The scope of situations covered covers crimes, offences, threats, harm to the public interest, violations of international obligations, EU law, or French law.

Additional protections:

• civil and criminal immunity for damages or liability arising from the report (Article 10-1, Sapin II; Article 122-9, Criminal Code);
• protection against retaliation, threats, or prohibited adverse measures (Article 10-1, Sapin II);
• adjustment of the burden of proof in cases of retaliation, similar to harassment claims (Article 10-1, Sapin II);
• criminal sanctions against those obstructing internal or external reporting (Article 13, Sapin II);
• civil and criminal sanctions for abusive proceedings against a whistle-blower (Article 13, Sapin II); and
• psychological and financial support measures for whistle-blowers (Article 14-1, Sapin II).

Additional legal protections:

• the Labour Code – prohibition of discriminatory measures against whistle-blowers (Article L.1121-2, L.1132-1); and
• the Criminal Code – recognition of whistle-blower status as a protected category against discrimination (Article 225-1 and 225-2, effective 1 September 2022).

France provides specific protections against sexual harassment and gender-based violence under the Labour Code and criminal Code.

Sexual Harassment

• Defined in Article L.1153-1 of the Labour Code as repeated conduct or remarks of a sexual or sexist nature that either undermine dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
• Protection extends even if the conduct occurs outside of work hours or premises (Cass. Soc., 19 October 2011, No 09-72.672).
• Recent case law recognises that “harassment by atmosphere” may also constitute sexual harassment (Cass. Crim., 12 March 2025, No 24-81.644).
• The burden of proof is adjusted, as for moral harassment: the employee must present facts that give rise to a presumption of harassment (Article L.1154-1).
• Employers are obliged to prevent and sanction harassment, taking all necessary measures and acting promptly once aware (Article L.1153-5; Cass. Soc., 1 June 2016, No 14-19.702).
• Victims or witnesses are protected against sanctions or discriminatory measures, with certain protections akin to those for whistle-blowers (Article L.1153-2).

Sexist Conduct

• Article L.1142-2-1 of the Labour Code prohibits any conduct related to sex that undermines dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.
• Unlike sexual harassment, repetition is not required, allowing early intervention to prevent escalation.
• Article R.625-8-3, Criminal Code, also criminalises sexist and sexual insults.

Recent Developments

Legislative and judicial trends continue to strengthen protections for victims of sexual and sexist conduct.

France provides specific protections against moral harassment, bullying, and other forms of workplace harassment under the Labour Code.

Moral Harassment

• Defined in Article L.1152-1 of the Labour Code as repeated conduct that degrades working conditions, undermines rights or dignity, harms physical or mental health, or jeopardises career prospects.
• The French Supreme Court has clarified that moral harassment may be established even if:
• the perpetrator did not intend to harm (Cass. Soc., 10 Nov. 2009, No 08-41.497);
• the acts are not of the same nature (Cass. Crim., 26 Jan. 2016, No 14-80.455);
• the acts occur over a short or long period (Cass. Soc., 26 May 2010, No 08-43.152; 25 Sept. 2012, No 11-17.987); and
• harassment arises from management methods (Cass. Soc., 10 Nov. 2009, No 07-45.321).

Employer Obligations

• Employers must take all necessary measures to prevent moral harassment (Article L.1152-4).
• They must also sanction perpetrators; liability cannot be avoided unless the employer implemented all preventive measures and acted promptly once aware of the harassment (Cass. Soc., 1 Jan. 2016, No 14-19.702).

Burden of Proof and Protection

• Victims benefit from an adjusted burden of proof: they need only present facts giving rise to a presumption of harassment (Article L.1154-1).
• Victims or witnesses are protected against sanctions or discriminatory measures, with some protections akin to whistle-blower protections (Article L.1153-2).

Recent Developments

Since the entry into force of the “Barème Macron” in 2017 (Article L.1235-3), which caps statutory or contractual dismissal compensation, claims related to moral harassment have significantly increased, reflecting heightened awareness and enforcement.

In France, employers are generally not under a specific legal obligation to report criminal offences of which they become aware.

Exceptions

Employers must report certain crimes under the Criminal Code, such as crimes or abuse, assaults, or sexual offences committed against minors or vulnerable persons.

Criminal Nature of Workplace Harassment or Discrimination

• Moral harassment (Article 222-33-2, Criminal Code) and sexual harassment (Article 222-33, Criminal Code), as well as discrimination (Articles 225-1 to 225-4, Penal Code), are criminal offences.
• Employees may pursue the perpetrator directly in criminal court, in addition to any internal investigation or labour court proceedings (Conseil de Prud’hommes).
• Internal investigations may continue during a criminal investigation, but must not obstruct it.

Practical considerations  include the following.

• Due to lengthy criminal proceedings and psychological impact, employees often prefer to pursue labour claims first, which allow for comprehensive remedies regarding working conditions or contract termination.
• Initiation of criminal proceedings can delay or block labour court proceedings until a criminal decision is rendered.
• Employers are advised to cooperate with criminal authorities to demonstrate good faith.
• Employers who suffer a prejudice (eg, reputational harm) due to the actions of an employee may join criminal proceedings as a civil party (Cass. Crim., 14 Nov. 2017, No 16-81.161).

In France, there are no specific legal procedures for multi-jurisdictional or cross-border internal investigations.

Domestic Investigations With an International Dimension

Any internal investigation conducted in France, regardless of its international scope, must comply with the guiding principles outlined in 5.1 Requirements, including impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for fundamental rights.

Investigations conducted in France by a foreign employer must:

• comply with French labour law;
• respect fundamental rights and freedoms; and
• comply with data protection requirements under the GDPR.

Investigations conducted abroad by a French employer must:

• respect the applicable local laws;
• ensure GDPR compliance for any personal data transferred to France; and
• adapt investigative methods to local regulations.

Practical considerations for international investigations:

• central co-ordination by an ethics/compliance team is recommended;
• a global protocol to harmonise local legal requirements and practices across jurisdictions should be implemented; and
• local counsel should be engaged where necessary to ensure procedural compliance.