Case - France - Venel v AREVA SA

Venel v AREVA SA

Summary of facts

AREVA is a mining company owned 85% by the French state, operating in Niger through its subsidiaries SOMAIR and COMINAK since 1968. Serge Venel worked in COMINAK, which operated uranium mines, from 1978 to 1984, and died in 2009 from lung cancer. Medical reports concluded his cancer was caused by inhaling uranium dust and cobalt- a recognised occupational disease by the French Social Security. His family brought a claim against AREVA. While AREVA was the largest shareholder of COMINAK (34% of shares), it did not hold the majority of the shares

Timeline

2015 Court of Cassation

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Labor Law

Legal issues

The claimants appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision
It is not disputed that this company has a legal personality of its own

Ruling / Outcome

2015: confirms the Court of Appeal’s judgement and reiterates AREVA could not be responsible as Venel worked exclusively under the subordination of COMINAK, which paid him, controlled his activity, and dismissed him in 1984
AREVA’s unilateral commitment concerning all the mining activities that it carries out either directly or through foreign subsidiaries cannot entail its recognition as a co-employer of the claimant

2013 Paris Court of Appeal

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Labor Law

Legal issues

The defendants appealed the Court for Social Affairs’ ruling of negligence

Ruling / Outcome

2013: overrules the findings of the French Court for Social Affairs of Melun holding AREVA could not be liable as an employer, but only COMINAK could be held liable, as it operates the site and is the company with which the employee had signed his employment contract

2012 French Court of Social Affairs of Melun

Jurisdiction

Yes

Applicable Law

French Labor Law

Legal issues

Concerns parent company liability for the actions of a subsidiary

Ruling / Outcome

2012: Court found AREVA guilty of negligence as a “co-employer”. AREVA had expressed interest in protecting the health of workers employed by its subsidiaries and behaved as an employer on matters relating to health and safety
Venel’s widow would see her pension double

Court case