Paris Judicial Court, February 5, 2026, No. 24/09128
In a decision dated February 5, 2026, the Paris judicial court reiterated that each party has the obligation to personally attend the mediation information meeting, even in the presence of their counsel. Absence could be justified on legitimate grounds, which was not the case here. Unprecedentedly, the court therefore sanctioned the absent party with a civil fine. Far more than a simple reminder of the regulatory obligations’ incumbent on the parties, the court demonstrates to litigants its firmness in this area.
The case concerned an insurance dispute regarding compensation for a burglary. In an order issued on 2 October 2025, the judge directed the parties to meet with a mediator. On 30 October 2025, the designated mediator confirmed that she had organized an information meeting via videoconference, which the Mutuelle Assurance des instituteurs de France (MAIF) did not attend, considering that it could be represented by its lawyer.
Two explanations were put forward to justify this absence. On the one hand, the case manager at MAIF was allegedly unable to attend on the proposed dates and apologized to the mediator. On the other hand, MAIF argued that it had provided a legitimate reason for its absence, arguing that it refused to allow its agents to participate in mediations in order to preserve their identities and ensure their safety, as part of general policy. However, these arguments did not convince the court.
Mediation, which now plays a central role in judicial policy, is based, with a few exceptions, on a fundamental principle: voluntary participation. Even before engaging in the procedure, parties are invited to attend a short and free information meeting – lasting between 30 minutes and an hour – either in person or remotely. While mediation itself remains optional, the mediation information meeting, when ordered by the judge, is mandatory. Furthermore, the order is addressed directly to parties whose personal attendance is required; representation by a lawyer is, therefore, not sufficient.
The legal framework has recently been tightened. Article 1533-3 of the code of civil procedure, introduced by Decree No. 2025-660 of 18 July 2025, marks a significant change: the mediator must inform the judge of a party’s absence, and that party faces a civil fine of up to €10,000 if they cannot provide a legitimate ground. In this case, the burden of proof lies with the absent party.
The court firmly rejected MAIF’s arguments, pointing out that attendance at the information meeting is mandatory. The requirement for a legitimate ground justifying absence is crucial.
One might therefore ask: what grounds are considered legitimate for failing to comply with an order to meet with a mediator? This concept appears to be interpreted strictly, without being confined to an exhaustive list drawn up by the legislature or the courts. The law and case law do, however, allow us to identify several categories that may be accepted. The sovereign assessment of the judges is based on the seriousness, objectivity, and justification of the reason given. The decision commented upon considers certain grounds, such as: influence, violence, illness, or the existence of another ongoing mediation process of which the court was not informed, with the burden on the absent party to prove the existence and relevance of the ground invoked.
The main contribution of the decision, however, lies in the effective exercise of the judge’s power to impose sanctions in cases of unjustified failure to attend the mediation information meeting. In this case, MAIF was fined €3,000, considering its unjustified absence, lack of good faith, and ability to pay.
The court emphasized that “the effectiveness of the order to meet with a mediator or court conciliator is guaranteed by the sanction, now laid down by decree, for refusing to comply with the order without legitimate grounds, in the form of a civil fine.” Consequently, making a deliberate choice not to attend in person an information meeting on mediation ordered by the judge is no longer a trivial matter, and as the Paris judicial court ruled for the first time, such failure to attend may result in a financial penalty.
Marine BENTOUMI
