In 2006, oil reserves were discovered in a protected natural park in Uganda. Total and the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation, together with the national oil companies of Uganda and Tanzania (UNOC and TPDC), are developing an oil megaproject. Total is planning to extract oil from over 400 oil wells on the shores of Lake Albert, and to build a 1,445 km long heated pipeline across Uganda and Tanzania to transport oil. The construction of this project threatens the livelihoods of local communities who depend on agriculture and fishing. and families are forced to abandon their lands with most receiving insufficient compensation. The project threatens polluting the Nile river and the lake Victoria basin and will result in vast CO2 emissions from combusting fuel. In June 2019, French NGOs (Friends of the Earth France and Survie) and Ugandan NGOs (AFIEGO, CRED, NAPE/Friends of the Earth Uganda and NAVODA) sent a formal notice to Total under the French Duty of Vigilance Law, giving Total three months to meet its obligations to develop, publish and implement appropriate vigilance measures to prevent abuses in the project. Total responded in October 2019 by denying any issues with its vigilance plan and projects in Uganda and Tanzania.
After the Paris Civil Court rejected the plaintiffs demands on procedural grounds, in June 2023, 26 members of the affected communities in Uganda, a human rights defender and five French and Ugandan associations relaunched the legal battle against Total with a new summons to court. The proceedings are still based on the duty of vigilance law, but this time take the form of a claim for damages.
Timeline
2023Paris Civil Court
Jurisdiction
Yes
Applicable Law
French Duty of Vigilance Law
Legal issues
The case is transferred to Paris Civil Court, which at the end of 2021 assumed exclusive jurisdiction over duty of vigilance cases.
Due to the imminent start of oil drillings, the associations ask for the project to be suspended, as a provisional measure to prevent irreparable harm.
A hearing takes place on 7 December 2022.
Ruling / Outcome
On 28 February 2023, almost four years after the letter of formal notice was sent to Total, the summary proceedings judges issue an order.
Without examining the question of Total's compliance with its duty of vigilance in its merits, the Court declares the plaintiff's demands inadmissible on procedural grounds. In their reasoning, the judges consider that, despite the formal notice sent to Total in June 2019, the applications and grievances of the claimants were "substantially different" from those of the initial letter. The judges noted that no new formal notice had been sent by the plaintiffs following the development of the plans published by Total subsequent to the original notice in 2019.
The Court states that only proceedings own the merits - which would take much longer to be heard in court - would be able to determine whether Total's vigilance measures are "appropriate".
2021Court of Cassation
Jurisdiction
Yes
Applicable Law
French Duty of Vigilance Law and Commercial Code (Article L. 721-3 on jurisdiction of the commercial court)
Legal issues
The plaintiffs appealed the Versailles Court of Appeal on jurisdiction
Plaintiffs argue that civil courts must rule on the case, as the claims relate to the company’s external impacts (on people and the environment) and not its internal management, and that it goes well beyond management. In addition, they argued that non commercial entities always have a right to choose (‘droit d’option’) the jurisdiction in cases where the defendant is a commercial entity, and can therefore choose the commercial court or the common civil court (‘tribunal judiciaire’).
Plaintiffs allegedly experienced harassment, intimidation, threats, and unlawful arrests
Ruling / Outcome
The Court ruled in favor of the civil society organizations by recognizing the “right to choose” (‘droit d’option’) that they enjoy as non-commercial claimants.
The case is sent back to the Nanterre first instance court (‘Tribunal Judiciaire de Nanterre’), which will examine the case on the merits.
2020Versailles Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Yes
Applicable Law
French Duty of Vigilance Law
Legal issues
The plaintiffs appealed the Nanterre Civil Court’s decision on jurisdiction, and, given the emergency, asked the Appeals court to rule also on the merits of the case.
Ruling / Outcome
The Court upheld the lower instance court’s ruling that the case should be brought before the commercial court. The Court did not recognize the emergency on the ground, and thus rejected the plaintiff’s request to rule on the merits.
2020Nanterre Civil Court
Jurisdiction
No
Applicable Law
French Duty of Vigilance Law
Legal issues
Concerns the parent company’s liability for its subsidiaries and sub-contractors