The criminal judge has no jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a search and seizure procedure (L.16 B LPF)

Following the Conseil d'Etat last Conseil d'Etat (Council of State, 9th and 10th Chambers, March 13, 2025, No. 469738, Lebon T.), which ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the legality of search and seizure procedures (Art. L. 16 B of the LPF), the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation adopted a similar position in a decision handed down yesterday.

Several companies had, in fact, been subject to inspections and seizures, during whichadministration had seized messages sent by the executive that could be used to establish certain violations.

administration then forwarded these documents to the prosecutor, and a criminal investigation was launched.

The executive who was the subject of the investigation then requested that certain procedural documents be set aside, arguing in particular that the search and seizure procedures had been conducted improperly.

The Court of Cassation will, however, rule that "the criminal court judge called upon to rule on charges of tax fraud does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of home searches conducted pursuant to Article L. 16 B of the Code of Tax Procedures, which falls within the jurisdiction of the First President of the Court of Appeal, and that it was incumbent upon the defendant—who occupied one of the premises searched and was a third party with an interest in the search of the other two—to file the appeal provided for by that provision."

Criminal Cassation, Sept. 10, 2025, No. 24-86.618, Published

This monitoring service is provided by Mispelon Avocat, a law firm specializing in tax audits and tax litigation. You can stay updated by subscribing to the newsletter via this link.