France’s Economic Justice Contribution: When Bringing a Business Claim Can Cost Up to €100,000

Since January 1, 2025, certain claimants bringing an initial claim worth more than €50,000 before one of these courts may have to pay a contribution before the case proceeds.

For qualifying corporate claimants, the contribution can equal 3% of the initial claims, capped at €50,000, or 5%, capped at €100,000, depending on average revenue and profit.

Claims for certain litigation costs under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure are excluded from the €50,000 threshold and from the contribution base.

The system can also apply to expedited interim proceedings, subject to statutory and regulatory exemptions.

Most importantly, the contribution is refunded when an amicable dispute resolution process ends both the proceedings and the underlying action, or when the claimant withdraws.

France’s Constitutional Council upheld the system on March 6, 2026, subject to an important safeguard where the contribution is ultimately shifted to the losing party as court costs.

For U.S. and international businesses litigating in France, the practical lesson is straightforward: choosing litigation before a designated TAE can now involve a material upfront budget decision.

What Is France’s Economic Justice Contribution?

The contribution pour la justice économique is an experimental court charge created by Article 27 of France’s 2023 Justice Programming Act and implemented by Decree No. 2024-1225 of December 30, 2024.

It applies only in a limited experimental setting.

Twelve existing commercial courts were designated as tribunaux des activités économiques, or Economic Activities Courts, for the experiment:

• Marseille;
• Le Mans;
• Limoges;
• Lyon;
• Nancy;
• Avignon;
• Auxerre;
• Paris;
• Saint-Brieuc;
• Le Havre;
• Nanterre;
• Versailles.

The contribution applies to proceedings filed before those courts from January 1, 2025, where the statutory and regulatory conditions are met.

It is not a general filing fee for every business case in France.

When Does the €50,000 Threshold Apply?

The contribution becomes relevant when the total value of the claimant’s initial claims exceeds €50,000.

Only the initial claims are used for the threshold.

Incidental claims are not subject to the contribution.

French procedural law also excludes amounts claimed for procedural costs that are not included in taxable court costs.

In practice, this means that an amount requested under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure does not count toward the €50,000 threshold and does not increase the contribution base.

For example, if a company claims €48,000 in principal damages and separately requests €8,000 under Article 700 for unrecovered legal costs, the Article 700 amount does not by itself push the claim above the statutory €50,000 threshold.

How Can the Contribution Reach €100,000?

For legal entities, the amount depends on financial capacity.

Companies with average annual revenue above €50 million and up to €1.5 billion

Where the claimant’s average annual revenue over the previous three years is above €50 million and no more than €1.5 billion, and its average annual profit exceeds €3 million, the contribution is 3% of the initial claims, capped at €50,000.

Companies with average annual revenue above €1.5 billion

Where average annual revenue exceeds €1.5 billion and average annual profit is positive, the contribution is 5% of the initial claims, capped at €100,000.

Consider a large company bringing a €2 million claim before the Paris TAE.

At a 5% rate, the contribution reaches €100,000, which is the statutory maximum.

This amount may be payable before the merits of the dispute are heard.

Failure to pay can result in the claim being declared inadmissible.

Which Businesses Are Exempt?

The statute exempts several categories.

Private legal entities with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.

The French State, local authorities, and their groupings are also exempt.

The contribution is also not due when the claimant seeks the opening of specified amicable or insolvency proceedings involving distressed businesses.

The implementing decree creates additional rules for particular procedural situations, including certain appeals, applications concerning ex parte orders, and proceedings following a remand after cassation.

For companies with French subsidiaries or French contractual counterparties, the exact procedural route therefore matters.

Does the Contribution Apply to Emergency Proceedings?

The experiment is not limited to ordinary merits proceedings.

Proceedings introduced before the designated TAE can include expedited interim proceedings, known in France as référé, where the relevant statutory conditions are satisfied.

This can be commercially significant.

A company seeking urgent judicial relief may therefore need to include the contribution in its decision-making even before the main dispute is fully litigated.

Who Ultimately Bears the Cost?

The claimant pays the contribution at the start.

Under French procedural law, however, the contribution is treated as a court cost, or dépens.

That means the economic burden can ultimately be shifted to the party ordered to bear court costs at the end of the proceedings.

This feature became an important constitutional issue.

In Decision No. 2025-1184 QPC of March 6, 2026, France’s Constitutional Council upheld the contribution but imposed a safeguard.

Because the amount can be substantial, the judge must assess whether shifting the contribution to the party ordered to pay court costs would be proportionate in light of that party’s economic situation.

For U.S. counsel, this means the contribution should not be viewed only as a claimant-side filing expense.

It can become part of the ultimate cost allocation between the parties.

Why Is the Contribution Refunded After an Amicable Settlement?

This is one of the most revealing features of the French experiment.

Article 27 provides for reimbursement where an amicable dispute resolution process ends both the pending proceedings and the underlying action. Reimbursement is also available in case of withdrawal.

The mechanism therefore creates a financial incentive to settle.

This raises an obvious policy question:

Is France using the contribution primarily to raise money, or to push businesses toward mediation and settlement?

The official legislative materials indicate that both objectives are part of the design.

The stated goals include:

• reducing abusive or dilatory litigation;
• encouraging parties to take greater responsibility for litigation choices;
• incentivizing amicable dispute resolution;
• contributing to the financing of the justice system;
• and bringing French economic justice closer to models used elsewhere in Europe.

The revenue is paid into France’s general state budget.

Did the French Constitutional Council Approve the System?

Yes. The contribution was challenged on several constitutional grounds, including access to justice, equality, and the risk that the charge could discourage claimants from bringing cases.

On March 6, 2026, the Constitutional Council upheld the challenged provisions.

It found that the legislature pursued a legitimate objective of sound administration of justice, particularly by seeking to reduce abusive and dilatory claims.

The Council also emphasized that the system takes claimants’ financial capacity into account and includes exemptions.

Its main reservation concerns the situation where the contribution is shifted to the party ordered to pay court costs.

In that situation, the judge must evaluate whether the burden remains proportionate to the party’s economic situation.

How Much Revenue Has the Contribution Generated?

As of the publication date of this article, no consolidated official public figure appears to have been released for the total revenue collected since the experiment began.

The French Ministry of Justice nevertheless receives the data.

The implementing decree requires commercial court clerks to transmit monthly collection statistics to the Ministry and to provide an annual report.

The final evaluation of the experiment must examine, among other things:

• the number and type of cases in which the contribution was paid;
• the average amount;
• the profile of claimants;
• the impact on alternative dispute resolution;
• and the total revenue generated.

This future data will be important in determining whether the contribution primarily changes behavior, raises revenue, or does both.

Why the Rule Matters to In-House Legal Teams

For in-house counsel, the rule changes the economics of litigation before the designated courts.

Before filing, legal teams should now compare:

• the amount of the contribution;
• the probability of recovering it through court-cost allocation;
• the risk of ultimately bearing the charge;
• legal fees and management time;
• expected recovery;
• settlement prospects;
• mediation costs;
• and the commercial value of preserving the business relationship.

The rule also increases the importance of dispute-resolution clauses.

A well-designed escalation clause may require executive negotiation, mediation, or another structured process before litigation.

That can create a genuine opportunity to resolve the dispute before the economic justice contribution must be committed.

For international groups, the rule also reinforces the strategic role of in-house counsel.

Legal teams are not simply preparing the lawsuit.

They are comparing litigation, settlement, mediation, timing, cash impact, and business risk.

Key Takeaways for U.S. Companies

France’s economic justice contribution is not a general tax on all litigation.

It is a targeted experiment before 12 Economic Activities Courts.

The €50,000 threshold concerns initial claims, excluding Article 700 litigation-cost requests.

The maximum contribution for qualifying corporate claimants is €100,000.

Private entities with fewer than 250 employees are exempt.

The contribution may ultimately be shifted through the French court-cost rules.

An amicable settlement ending the proceedings can trigger reimbursement.

For U.S. businesses with French subsidiaries, counterparties, or litigation exposure, the contribution should therefore be modeled as part of the dispute budget before proceedings begin.