Civil Procedure and Amicable Resolution: a French Revolution Carried by the Decree of 18 July 2025

Decree No. 2025-660 of 18 July 2025, which came into force on 1 September 2025, constitutes a major reform of French civil procedure by establishing the culture of amicable resolution as the guiding principle of litigation.

This text, which is expected to be a decisive step in the modernization of the justice system, marks a paradigm shift: conventional pre-trial proceedings become the general rule, and judicial intervention is strictly subsidiary. Alternative means of dispute resolution are encouraged.

This is a cultural, procedural and strategic change for practitioners, who must rethink the way they approach litigation, including in technical areas such as intellectual property. It remains to be seen how lawyers will take up these tools.

1. Conventional pre-trial proceedings by default

At the heart of the decree is a new article stating that "pre-trial proceedings shall be managed conventionally by the parties, failing which, judicially". Conventional pre-trial proceedings are therefore the principle of all civil proceedings, with judicial proceedings becoming the exception.

Under the new structure, the parties must now define the terms of their case themselves, with the judge only intervening in the event of failure or lack of agreement. The judge thus becomes, beyond the arbitrator of the dispute, a procedural guide, who can offer the parties several options for settlement: judicial proceedings, participatory proceedings or amicable resolution through mediation or conciliation.

2. A unified structure and encouragement of amicable dispute resolution methods

The second major focus of the decree is the clarification and structuring of amicable dispute resolution methods. Previously scattered, the mechanisms of conciliation, mediation and participatory proceedings are now grouped together and subject to common principles.

The reform thus enshrines two important guarantees:

1. Confidentiality by default of exchanges during mediation or conciliation. It is also specified that documents not created during the amicable process are not confidential.

2. Obligation of impartiality and competence of third-party mediators and conciliators

In addition to structuring amicable processes, these are also encouraged.

Thus, the judge may order the parties to meet with a designated mediator. This does not mean that the parties will necessarily have to enter into mediation, as the parties' freedom takes precedence in this regard. However, they will at least have to explore this avenue with the support of a competent mediator. Moreover, the decree introduces a new penalty in this regard: unjustified refusal to meet with a mediator may result in a civil fine of up to €10,000.

In addition, the judge may summon the parties to an amicable settlement hearing. This provision, which was previously reserved for certain types of disputes (particularly labour and family), now applies to all types of litigation.

Focus on intellectual property

Traditionally, intellectual property disputes are lengthy, complex and costly. In this context, encouraging amicable settlement may be particularly relevant.

In addition, the Decree structures and encourages recourse to assessments by contractual experts establishing a clear framework and recognizing the legal value of such assessments. Moreover, the expert may be assigned a conciliatory role, which was previously prohibited. Certain technical disputes (patent validity, interpretation of license agreements, etc.) may benefit from such clearer legal provisions.

3. Practical impact

The Decree will transform the litigation practice by requiring lawyers to:

• Prioritize amicable settlement procedures: these should no longer be a strategic option, but a procedural norm;

• Systematically include an assessment of the chances of amicable settlement and the possible methods (mediation, conciliation, participatory procedure) – no longer mere best practice but an obligation;

• Decide on the course of action and, where applicable, establish a timetable, the terms of their communications and their respective obligations regarding the exchange of documents;

• Remain vigilant with regard to limitation periods and lapse of proceedings.

While this reform promises a more efficient, less costly and more responsive justice system, its implementation is not straightforward. It entails profound changes in the practices of the parties and their counsels, and it is certain that lawyers may take some time to become familiar with the new ways. “Paris ne s’est pas fait en un jour” (“Paris was not built in a day”) as popular wisdom has it; but what a result!