Introduced on 3 March 2026, Bill No. 2544 overhauls the criminal framework governing violations of restrictive measures adopted by the European Union. It seeks to transpose into French law Directive (EU) 2024/1226 of 24 April 2024, which requires Member States to establish criminal offences for violation and circumvention of EU restrictive measures, with a view to setting common minimum standards.
The bill abandons the previous, rather imprecise, references to Article 459 of the Customs Code and instead clearly defines eight categories of conduct constituting criminal offences, including the circumvention of restrictive measures. It also introduces aggravating circumstances, notably where offences are committed as part of organized crime or involve dual-use items.
While the bill contributes to the objective of harmonising legal regimes across the European Union, several aspects raise concerns.
🔹 A strict liability offence at odds with the directive:
Recital 4 of the directive requires that offences be committed intentionally. It allows gross negligence as an alternative basis for liability, but only in relation to trade in dual-use items, and without requiring a specific penalty in such cases.
The bill goes significantly further in two respects. First, it extends criminal liability based on gross negligence to all trade in goods, rather than limiting it to dual-use items. Second, and more importantly, it introduces a strict liability offence — meaning an offence based solely on the material act, without any requirement of intent — punishable by a fine and confiscation of the goods, even “in the absence of intent or gross negligence.”
On this point, the French bill appears inconsistent with the directive and may also raise constitutional concerns in light of the principles of necessity and proportionality of penalties.
🔹 An overly broad definition of freezing:
The bill includes seizure within the definition of the freezing of funds and economic resources, thereby creating conceptual confusion and raising significant concerns regarding property rights:
– The freezing of assets is a precautionary and reversible measure that does not affect ownership.
– A seizure is a coercive measure that transfers control of the property and may lead to forfeiture.
Including seizure within the notion of freezing is also inconsistent with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on restrictive measures, which has repeatedly held that “restrictive measures […] constitute precautionary measures, which are not intended to deprive the persons concerned of their property” (see, for example, para. 96, Shuvalov v Council, T-289/22).
🔹 A gap in transposition regarding legal professional privilege:
The directive explicitly protects the legal professional privilege. It provides an exemption from any reporting obligation for information received from or obtained on a client in the course of assessing their legal position, representing them, or defending them — including advice on the initiation or avoidance of legal proceedings.
The bill is entirely silent on this issue. On the contrary, it creates an offence of failure to report applicable to any person who has obtained information on the assets of a sanctioned individual “in the course of a professional activity” — wording broad enough to cover both legal counsel and litigation counsel without distinction.
The absence of a specific exemption allowing lawyers to comply with their professional obligation of legal privilege is particularly concerning and will require close scrutiny during the forthcoming parliamentary debates.