Limitation period for infringement actions: each act of exploitation triggers its own time limit

Versailles Court of Appeal, 5 May 2026, SACEM v. Groupe Canal+ (No. 24/05626)

In a judgment of 5 May 2026, the Versailles Court of Appeal provides a further illustration of the current case law on the limitation period for infringement actions.

Hearing a dispute between SACEM and Canal+ concerning Canal+’s “TNT SAT” satellite television service offering, the Court clarified the practical consequences of the distinction now drawn between infringements resulting from a single act and those resulting from a succession of distinct acts of exploitation.

In this case, SACEM alleged that Canal+ had been distributing the TNT SAT offering since 2007 without a representation agreement authorising it to communicate works from SACEM’s repertoire to the public. After negotiations between the parties aimed at regularising the situation failed, SACEM ultimately brought infringement proceedings. In that context, it sought compensation for the loss allegedly suffered, as well as disclosure of the information needed to assess that loss since 2007.

Canal+, for its part, argued that the action was time-barred. In its view, the alleged facts originated in the launch of the TNT SAT offering in 2007. Since SACEM had been aware of that offering from the time it was launched, a single limitation period had begun to run on that date and had expired before the summons was served on 9 June 2023.

Conversely, SACEM argued that the limitation period should apply separately to each act of communication to the public of a work from its repertoire. In its submissions, it was not possible to aggregate a multitude of distinct acts of exploitation concerning different works in order to subject them to a single limitation period running from the first unlawful act. SACEM also stressed that its action did not concern the overall exploitation of the TNT SAT offering or an abstract use of its “repertoire”, but rather the multiple communications to the public of protected works taking place daily through the service. According to SACEM, the TNT SAT offering was therefore merely the vehicle for a succession of autonomous acts of exploitation, each of which triggered its own limitation period.

The issue in dispute was the determination of the starting point of the limitation period: should the alleged exploitation be regarded as a single event whose effects continued over time, or instead as a succession of distinct acts of broadcast capable of triggering as many limitation periods as there are acts of exploitation?

The Court of Appeal follows on from recent case law of the French Court of Cassation, in particular its judgment of 3 September 2025 (Cass. 1st civ., 3 September 2025, No. 23-18.669). It recalls that where infringement results from a succession of distinct acts of reproduction, performance or broadcast, each act constitutes an autonomous operative event and triggers its own limitation period, starting from the day on which the author became aware, or should have become aware, of it.

The Court thus emphasises that each broadcast legally constitutes a distinct act, even where it concerns the same work, is carried out by the same operator and uses the same technical medium. It follows that, in the absence of a single event, the infringement action may be time-barred for certain acts while remaining admissible for the most recent ones.

Applying this reasoning, the Court notes that SACEM could not reasonably have been unaware of the existence of the alleged acts of infringement since the launch of the TNT SAT offering in 2007, given the publicity surrounding its deployment, its media coverage and the institutional communications of the CSA (now ARCOM). Accordingly, for each alleged act of infringement, the limitation period began to run from the moment that act was performed.

In accordance with the approach now adopted by the Court of Cassation, only acts occurring more than five years before the summons are time-barred.

The Court therefore upholds the order declaring inadmissible the claims based on facts prior to 9 June 2018, while maintaining the admissibility of those relating to acts subsequent to that date.

This solution therefore reinforces the scope of the above-mentioned case law of the Court of Cassation and confirms that, where the exploitations of a work is renewed over time, the limitation period must be assessed by reference to each act of exploitation taken individually.