DGCCRF, DDPP, or DREETS hearing: why a summons is not just a formality

The summons is brief, polite, and fits on a single page. It invites you to appear on a specific date at the offices of a departmental directorate to be heard "in the context of an investigation." No accusations are made, and no amounts are specified. This is precisely why most SME directors go alone, convinced that it is just a meeting to provide explanations and that any misunderstanding will be cleared up.

This interpretation is mistaken and costly. A DGCCRF hearing is a structured investigative act that follows a specific method and produces a written document intended to serve as evidence. The interview proceeds like a funnel: general, friendly questions about your business, followed by targeted questions about specific facts, and finally, questions where the answer no longer describes a fact but fulfills a legal requirement. This shift is almost always invisible. Added to this is a factor that is systematically underestimated: when the administration summons you, they have already done their homework. They are not coming to learn about your business; they are coming to confirm hypotheses for legal qualification. The question asked is therefore often one for which the investigator already knows the answer, and what is being measured is not your information, but your consistency.

This article is the first in a three-part series. It describes the actual mechanics of the interview, identifies the categories of questions with legal implications, and outlines the risks you face. It will not provide template answers: no generic approach can withstand the specifics of a particular case. For support tailored to your situation, our DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS litigation team provides assistance from the initial summons through to litigation.

Who summons you for a hearing and on what legal basis?

A central administration, decentralized services, the same powers

The DGCCRF is a central administration, but it is almost never the one that summons you. Field inspections are conducted by the Departmental Directorates for the Protection of Populations (DDPP), or the DDETSPP where services have merged. At the regional level, the "Pôle C" of the DREETS handles cross-functional issues and companies with multiple establishments. In overseas territories, the same mission falls to the DEETS and DIEETS; in the Île-de-France region, to the DRIEETS. Regardless of the label on the letterhead, the agents derive their powers from the same texts in Book V of the Consumer Code: being summoned by a small departmental directorate in no way reduces the weight of what will be written.

The legal basis: Articles L. 512-8 and L. 512-10

The Article L. 512-8 of the Consumer Code establishes the right of access to documents: "Authorized agents may require the disclosure of documents of any kind likely to facilitate the fulfillment of their mission. They may obtain them or make copies by any means and on any medium, or seize these documents wherever they may be found." The breadth of this wording explains why the administration often possesses documents you are unaware of by the time they interview you. This power is analyzed in detail in our article on the right of access under Article L. 512-8 of the Consumer Code.

The Article L. 512-10 provides the basis for the hearing. Authorized officers may conduct hearings, either by summons or on-site, of any person likely to provide information useful to their findings. They shall draw up a report, which must include the questions asked and the answers given. The persons heard shall read the report themselves, may have their observations recorded therein, and shall affix their signature; in the event of a refusal to sign, this shall be noted. The text refers toArticle 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is applicable in accordance with Article 28 of the same code when there are plausible reasons to suspect that the person has committed or attempted to commit an offense.

Two drafting details carry significant consequences. The report preserves a record of the question asked, not just your answer. Furthermore, you are the one who reads and signs it: the authorities do not impose a text upon you; they obtain your validation of a text. This appearance of control by the person being heard is one of the reasons why this document is so difficult to challenge.

Voluntary interview and police custody: a poorly understood distinction

Many executives reassure themselves by saying they are "not in police custody." This is accurate, but it does not mean what they think it means. Police custody is a coercive measure that deprives a person of their liberty, decided by a judicial police officer and overseen by the public prosecutor's office. Thevoluntary interview is based on the absence of coercion: you may leave the premises at any time. However, the difference lies in the legal framework of the measure, not in the weight of the testimony. A statement collected during a voluntary interview is included in the same file and is used against you before the same court.

Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in its version in force since December 31, 2020, lists six pieces of information that must be notified before the hearing of a suspected person.

• The classification, date, and presumed location of the offense they are suspected of having committed or attempted to commit.
• The right to leave at any time the premises where they are being heard.
• The right to be assisted by an interpreter, if applicable.
• The right to make statements, to answer questions, or to remain silent.
• The right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choosing or appointed by the court, if the offense is a crime or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment.
• The option to receive legal advice, free of charge where applicable, at a legal aid center.

These rights are public and are usually included in the summons when the nature of the investigation allows. The problem is never their existence: it is that the executive views them as a formality recited at the start of the session, at the very moment they are least prepared to grasp their significance. We have dedicated a comprehensive guide tovoluntary interviews with the DGCCRF and DDPP.

Would you like to discuss this? Book a consultation:

CLICK HERE TO BOOK YOUR ONLINE CONSULTATION

Table 1 - Authorities that may summon you

Information asymmetry: the administration is not discovering, it is verifying

The file exists before the summons

A summons for an interview is never the start of an investigation: it is an advanced stage. Before writing to you, the agents have already secured evidence, formed hypotheses, identified the applicable laws, and determined what is missing to establish an offense. The interview is used to fill that gap. What they are looking for is not your information, but your version of events, its consistency with the documents they hold, and your personal stance regarding the facts.

What the administration may have gathered before interviewing you

• Documents obtained through the right of access : contracts, invoices, terms and conditions, product sheets, and internal communications, including those from third parties, as Article L. 512-8 covers documents "in whosoever's hands they may be."
• Captures of commercial materials : e-commerce pages, packaging details, or standard quote templates. These items are timestamped, which neutralizes any argument based on subsequent modifications.
• Consumer reports : claims, complaints, and feedback from associations. An isolated report proves nothing, but a converging body of evidence guides the line of questioning.
• Exchanges with other government agencies : tax authorities, social security bodies, sector-specific regulators, and other departmental directorates.
• Findings from a previous inspection : point-of-sale visit, test purchase, inspection report already drawn up.

A generic illustration, unrelated to any specific case. A home repair SME assumes its summons will concern a specific intervention reported by a customer. In reality, the agents have gathered around thirty standard quotes, a record of website claims, and a comparison between the price quoted over the phone and the price billed. They are not looking for what happened with that one customer: they are looking to see if the practice is systematic, and who decided on it.

The question for which the investigator already knows the answer

A significant portion of the questions is not aimed at gathering unknown information, but at testing the consistency between what you say and what is in the file. The effects work against you in both cases. If your answer matches, it authenticates the document and you become its guarantor. If it diverges, the discrepancy is recorded in a report that you will sign and will be read as an inaccuracy, even though it often only reflects a memory lapse regarding a detail from two years ago. It is at this stage that being accompanied by a lawyer specializing in DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS inspections changes the nature of the exercise, because it allows you to know what is already in the file before you speak.

The funnel technique: the three stages of the hearing

First stage: the setting, the activity, the goodwill

The interview opens with a broad and reassuring sequence: present your company, its staff, its products, its sales channels, the distribution of roles, and how decisions are made. The questions are open-ended, the atmosphere is cordial, and many executives adopt the persona of a business owner explaining their trade with pride.

This stage is not just a courtesy. It establishes a conversational dynamic in which it becomes socially costly to refuse to answer the next question. It sets a factual framework that you will validate by signing and from which you will no longer be able to deviate. Finally, it allows for the identification of areas where you are comfortable and those where you hesitate. An innocuous sentence about how you "approve everything that goes out" will be brought up three hours later, in a completely different context.

Second stage: narrowing down to the facts

The register changes without the tone changing. We move from the general to the specific: a certain claim on a certain page, a discrepancy between an advertisement and an invoice, a certain date. The questions become closed and verifiable, and concern elements for which the administration already holds material evidence. This is where the bulk of the evidentiary material is played out. Yet, a fact acknowledged by the executive has more value than a fact established by a document, because it clears away any discussion regarding the authenticity, context, or interpretation of the piece. The investigator is not just building a case: they are building a case that you have validated.

Third stage: the qualification

The final stage is the shortest and most decisive. The questions no longer concern what happened, but how to qualify it. You are no longer asked if the claim appeared on the medium: you are asked if you "knew" it was inaccurate, if you were "aware" that it could be misleading, if you "decided" to maintain it. The vocabulary shifts from descriptive to legal, and this shift is imperceptible because the tone has not varied. Knowing, deciding, validating, awareness, habit, systematic: these are ordinary words. They are also, in a criminal qualification, words that fill in boxes, and a box filled in by the accused person themselves is infinitely more difficult to empty later.

Why the funnel works

The effectiveness of the method does not stem from any dishonesty on the part of the agents, but from a robust psychological mechanism: narrative consistency. Over the course of the interview, you have built a continuous narrative with the investigator in which each answer relies on the previous one. Once you reach the third stage, contradicting this narrative would amount to disavowing yourself on points you established yourself an hour earlier, without any pressure. A normally constituted human being does not do this: they prefer to continue the line they have drawn, even if it means conceding a point they would never have conceded if the question had been asked at the outset.

Table 2 - The three stages of the funnel

Why certain words are binding: the offense is a grid to be filled

Criminal reasoning proceeds by constituent elements

An offense is not a general impression of dishonesty. It is a legal definition broken down into constituent elements, each of which must be established; if even one is missing, the offense is not characterized. Some are easily established through documents: the existence of a statement, its dissemination, its date. Others are very difficult to establish from the outside: what the manager knew, what they decided, and what effect they expected. These are the elements that the third stage of the funnel aims to obtain, and there is no better source than the person being investigated.

The example of misleading commercial practice

UnderArticle L. 121-2 of the Consumer Code, a practice is misleading in particular when it is based on false allegations, indications, or presentations, or those likely to mislead regarding one of the elements listed in the text: 2°, b covers the essential characteristics of the good or service, including the expected results of its use ; 2°, c covers the price or its method of calculation and the conditions of sale; 2°, e covers the scope of the advertiser's commitments ; 3° covers the scenario in which the person on whose behalf the practice is implemented is not clearly identifiable.

Added to this are texts that toughen the professional's position.Article L. 121-3 penalizes misleading by omission, when substantial information is omitted, concealed, or provided in an unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner.Article L. 121-4 lists practices deemed misleading in all circumstances.Article L. 121-2-1 places the burden of proof on the advertiser to demonstrate the accuracy of their claims: it is not up to the administration to prove that the statement is false; it is up to you to prove that it is accurate. Finally,Article L. 132-1 specifies that the offense is established as soon as the practice is implemented or produces its effects in France.

The practice must also be likely to substantially alter the economic behavior of the average consumer. On this point, case law is unfavorable to the professional: the mere risk of alteration is sufficient, without it being necessary to establish that a consumer was actually deceived (Cass. crim., July 11, 2017, No. 16-84.902; Cass. com., July 7, 2021, No. 19-16.028). The argument based on the absence of complaints is therefore largely ineffective.

The mental element: negligence is sufficient

Many executives believe they are safe because they never intended to deceive. This is a flawed analysis. The Court of Cassation holds that the mental element can result from manifestly deliberate negligence (Cass. crim., January 29, 2019, No. 17-86.876). It is enough to establish that the professional disseminated an allegation without taking the steps to verify what they were claiming. An agri-food SME that repeats a quality claim provided by its supplier without checking it cannot defend itself by saying it trusted them: it is establishing that it did not verify, which is exactly the point of the reproach.

The consequence for the mechanics of questioning

Some seemingly neutral questions are therefore not looking for a fact, but for a word. When you are invited to say whether a practice was customary, whether you validated what was published, or whether you had been alerted, it is not your account that is being sought: it is the term that will allow the investigation report to state that the constituent element is established by the executive's own statements.

We will not publish a list of words to avoid, and this is not just for show. Such a list would be useless, because the investigator works on sequences rather than isolated terms, and dangerous, because an executive who mechanically dodges certain words produces an artificial transcript whose strangeness will be noted. The only relevant approach is to know, before entering, which qualifications are at stake and which constituent elements are already covered by the documents. Our guide dedicated to misleading commercial practices for SME executives details the complete structure of the offense.

Typology of questions with legal effect

Not all questions are equal. Some gather information, while others produce a legal effect in themselves. Here are five categories, described for what they are. We have deliberately not associated any counter-measures with them: the relevant response depends entirely on the case.

The presupposition question

It takes for granted a fact that has not been established and focuses only on a secondary aspect of that fact. It does not ask whether something happened, but since when, how often, or by whom it was decided. The difficulty lies in the fact that the presupposition is not perceived: the executive, focused on the interrogative part, answers about the date and, in doing so, validates the underlying fact. In an SME in the cosmetics sector, an answer regarding the month an allegation appeared on packaging entails recognition of its presence and its dissemination, before any discussion of its accuracy.

The reformulation question

This is the most formidable and the most frequent at the end of an interview. It takes the form of a summary proposed by the investigator: "so you acknowledge that...", "if I understand correctly, you confirm that...". It seems polite, as it only appears to recap your remarks. In reality, it takes scattered facts, described in business language, and renders them in a vocabulary that is already legal, more general, and more categorical. A polite nod to this summary transforms a fact into an admission of qualification, and this admission appears on a document that you have read and signed.

The question outside the temporal or material scope

The summons normally states the purpose of the investigation and, when Article 61-1 applies, the classification, date, and location of the alleged offense. The interview is not necessarily limited to this: questions may cover practices prior to the period in question, product lines outside the announced scope, or related companies not mentioned in the summons. These answers broaden the scope of the investigation and can revive facts that the passage of time might have rendered unusable. An e-commerce executive who, in an effort to be transparent, mentions a practice abandoned three years earlier opens a subject that no one had previously raised.

The open-ended question at the end of the interview

It occurs when everything seems to be over: "Is there anything you would like to add?" The report is almost written, and the tension is subsiding. This is the moment of maximum vulnerability, because two reflexes are triggered. The first is the need to justify oneself: after two hours of targeted questions, the executive feels they have been misunderstood and provides explanations that no one asked for. The second is the need to clear one's name by pointing the finger at a service provider, an employee, or a partner, which creates incriminating evidence regarding internal organization.

The question regarding the executive's personal role

This is the most serious category, because it does not concern the offense itself but rather its imputation. Who designed the commercial message? Who set the displayed price? Who reviewed the sales script before it was released? Depending on the answer, the proceedings may target the company alone or both the company and its executive personally. This is the difference between a fine borne by a corporate entity and a personal criminal conviction, with all that entails in terms of corporate offices, banking relationships, and reputation.

Legal entity and executive: the articulation of responsibilities

Cumulation is the rule

Article121-2 of the Criminal Code establishes that legal entities are criminally liable for offenses committed on their behalf by their organs or representatives, and specifies that this liability does not exclude that of the natural persons who are the perpetrators or accomplices of the same acts. There is therefore no "communicating vessels" mechanism: the widespread idea that "the company takes the hit" is legally false. Financially,Article 131-38 of the Criminal Code sets the maximum rate of the fine applicable to legal entities at five times that provided for natural persons.

Personal participation must be characterized, but it is easily established

An executive is not liable solely by virtue of their position: their personal participation must be established. However, one must gauge the level of requirement applied. The Court of Cassation has ruled that participation in the development of a campaign can be sufficient to trigger the executive's criminal liability (Cass. crim., May 31, 2023, No. 21-82.469). It is therefore not necessary to establish that they wrote the disputed message themselves: it is enough that they took part in the process that produced it. Since SME executives are truly involved in everything, sincerely describing their daily routine often amounts, unknowingly, to describing personal participation within the meaning of the case law.

A requirement for judicial individualization

There is a counterbalance. In two rulings dated November 25, 2025 (No. 24-85.437 and No. 24-85.443), the Criminal Chamber overturned decisions that had set fines without a concrete examination of the defendants' personal situations, citing Articles 132-1 and 132-20 of the Penal Code. However, this oversight concerns the quantum, not the guilt: it does not rectify an unfortunate statement made during an interrogation.

What happens to the report after the interrogation

A document that follows the file

The report drawn up pursuant to Article L. 512-10 is not an internal summary. It is a procedural document included in the investigation file. It contains the questions asked and the answers provided, the mention of the rights notified when Article 61-1 applies, and your signature. It accompanies the file through all its potential outcomes: administrative follow-up, with the adversarial procedure ofArticle L. 522-5 of the Consumer Code prior to the fine that the administrative authority may impose pursuant toArticle L. 522-1 ; or criminal follow-up, with transmission to the public prosecutor's office.

The imbalance in the adversarial phase

The adversarial phase is often presented as the real opportunity to explain oneself. This is partly true: Article L. 522-5 requires that the person involved be informed in writing of the proposed sanction, advised of their right to be assisted by counsel of their choice, and invited to present their written and, if applicable, oral observations. But this phase does not take place on a blank slate: your report is in the file. Your observations will be read in light of your previous statements, and any discrepancy will be noted. We detail this point in our analysis of the DGCCRF and DDPP adversarial phase and the letter of intent to sanction.

The practical irreversibility of a statement

An unfortunate response cannot be taken back. In law, nothing prevents one from retracting a statement. In practice, the value of a retraction is low and its cost is high: it draws attention to the retracted point and fuels the assumption that the first version was the true one. Furthermore, the report has a formidable quality: it is brief. Two hours of nuanced explanations are reduced to a few pages, and a complex position is crystallized into one or two sentences. It is these sentences, taken out of context, that will be cited in the investigation report, in the administration's letter, and, if applicable, in the prosecution's submissions.

Cooperating without self-incrimination: a tension that the texts do not resolve

On one hand, the offense of obstruction

ArticleArticle L. 512-4 of the Consumer Code states that it is prohibited to obstruct the performance of the duties of authorized agents.Article L. 531-1 the penalty is: two years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros, an amount that may be increased, in proportion to the benefits derived from the offense, to 10% of the average annual turnover calculated based on the last three annual turnover figures known at the date of the facts. This offense specifically targets the refusal to provide documents required under Article L. 512-8, their concealment or destruction, or the provision of altered documents. For an SME, such a fine can far exceed the penalty incurred for the offense initially under investigation: it sometimes happens that the offense of obstruction becomes the main issue in a case that was initially modest.

On the other hand, the right not to incriminate oneself

Article 61-1, 4° of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly recognizes the right of a suspected person to make statements, to answer questions asked, or to remain silent. This right is not subject to any conditions, and its exercise cannot in itself constitute a charge. The point that escapes most executives is that the two mechanisms do not concern the same subject: the offense of obstruction penalizes behaviors that materially hinder the investigation, primarily the refusal to provide items that the law allows to be demanded; the right to remain silent concerns the statements of the suspected person.

A gray area that we will not resolve here

The boundary, however, is not always clear. Between total silence, which is a right but is not neutral in the subsequent relationship with the administration, and unreserved cooperation, which fuels the case file, there is a space where the positioning depends on very concrete parameters: intended charges, the actual content of the file, the company's compliance status, and the executive's personal exposure. We will not provide a slider, because there is no generic one: a simple rule applied to the wrong case produces either an aggravation of the criminal risk or a risk of obstruction. This type of trade-off justifies the intervention of a business criminal defense lawyer before the hearing, not after.

The real stakes: what you are concretely risking

The criminal aspect

ArticleL. 132-2 of the Consumer Code punishes misleading commercial practices under Articles L. 121-2 to L. 121-4 with two years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros. The amount may be increased, in proportion to the benefits derived from the offense, to 10% of the average annual turnover calculated based on the last three annual turnover figures known at the date of the facts. When the offense has been committed through the use of an online public communication service or a digital medium, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 euros. This circumstance now concerns almost all companies and, combined with Article 131-38 of the Penal Code, it brings the ceiling incurred by the company to 3,750,000 euros.

Publication of the conviction: a mandatory penalty

This is the provision whose scope executives most often underestimate.Article L. 132-4 stipulates that in the event of a conviction, the court shall order, by any appropriate means, the posting or dissemination of all or part of the decision, or a press release informing the public of its grounds and operative part. This is not optional: publication is the rule. The economic consequences regularly exceed those of the fine, as a published decision remains accessible and indexed for clients, partners, and banks.

The administrative aspect

Not all follow-up actions are criminal.Article L. 521-1 allows authorized agents, following an adversarial procedure, to order a professional to comply with their obligations, to cease any illicit conduct, or to remove any illicit clause. The injunction may be accompanied by a daily penalty payment not exceeding 3,000 euros, with the total amount capped at 300,000 euros. Added to this is the administrative fine under Article L. 522-1, issued after the adversarial procedure provided for in Article L. 522-5, andArticle L. 522-6 provides that the decision may be subject to a publicity measure, carried out at the expense of the sanctioned party.

A proactive enforcement policy

These mechanisms are not dormant. Data published by the DGCCRF regarding the 2022-2023 campaign focused on influencer marketing provides a useful order of magnitude: more than 300 professionals inspected, 151 follow-up actions taken, including 35 warnings, 81 injunctions, and 35 criminal proceedings. A significant proportion of cases therefore leads to criminal proceedings rather than a simple reminder of the regulations.

Table 3 - The scale of potential sanctions

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Am I required to attend a DGCCRF or DDPP hearing?

A distinction must be made here. A voluntary interview is, by definition, based on the absence of coercion, with Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing the right to leave the premises where one is being heard at any time. This does not mean that a refusal to answer is without consequence: it may lead the administration toward less flexible investigative methods and deprives the company of any visibility on the case. Furthermore, refusing to provide documents requested under Article L. 512-8 involves a different issue: the offense of obstructing an investigation.

Can I be assisted by a lawyer during a voluntary DGCCRF interview?

Article 61-1, 5° of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the right to be assisted by a lawyer when the offense is a crime or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. Deceptive commercial practices under Article L. 132-2 and the offense of obstruction under Article L. 531-1 are both such offenses. The same text provides that, when the progress of the investigation allows, the written summons must indicate the suspected offense and this right. However, assistance during the session does not replace the work done beforehand: it is the prior analysis of the summons, the cited texts, and the documents likely in the authorities' possession that determines the quality of the defense.

What is the difference between a DDPP voluntary interview and police custody?

Police custody is a coercive measure that deprives a person of their liberty, decided by a judicial police officer and subject to the supervision of the public prosecutor's office. A voluntary interview implies the absence of coercion, with the person remaining free to leave the premises. The difference lies in the legal framework of the measure, not in the value of what is declared: a statement collected during a voluntary interview has exactly the same probative force and will be used against you in court.

What questions are asked during a DGCCRF interview?

There is no standard questionnaire, but there is a recurring progression. The interview begins with broad questions regarding the business, its organization, and the distribution of roles. It then narrows down to specific facts, dated and supported by documents already in the authorities' possession. It concludes with questions focusing not on the facts themselves, but on their legal characterization: what the executive knew, what they approved, and what they decided. A specific category of questions concerns the executive's personal role: this is not used to establish the offense, but to determine who will be held accountable for it.

Can the interview report be used against me in court?

Yes. The report drawn up pursuant to Article L. 512-10 of the Consumer Code is a procedural document. It contains the questions asked and the answers provided, it is read and signed by the person interviewed, and it follows the case file, whether it is directed toward the administrative adversarial phase under Articles L. 522-1 and L. 522-5 or transmitted to the public prosecutor. Nothing prevents you from later retracting a statement, but the practical value of a retraction is low.

Can you refuse to answer a question without risking the offense of obstruction?

The two concepts do not concern the same subject. The right to remain silent, enshrined in Article 61-1, 4° of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to statements made by the suspected person. The offense of obstruction under Articles L. 512-4 and L. 531-1 of the Consumer Code penalizes behaviors that materially prevent agents from carrying out their mission, primarily the refusal to provide documents that the law allows them to demand. However, the boundary is not always clear during the session: it is a technical issue that must be decided on a case-by-case basis with a lawyer specializing in DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS audits.

What are the risks for an SME executive after a DGCCRF interview?

From a criminal perspective, Article L. 132-2 of the Consumer Code provides for two years of imprisonment and a 300,000 euro fine for deceptive commercial practices, increased to five years and 750,000 euros when the offense is committed using an online public communication service or digital medium, with the fine potentially set at 10% of the average annual turnover of the last three financial years. The maximums are quintupled for the company under Article 131-38 of the Penal Code, and Article L. 132-4 requires the court to order the publication of the conviction. From an administrative perspective, the company faces an injunction subject to a penalty payment (Article L. 521-1), an administrative fine (Articles L. 522-1 and L. 522-5), and the publication of the sanction (Article L. 522-6).

Conclusion

A DGCCRF, DDPP, or DREETS interview should not be prepared like an explanatory meeting, because that is not what it is. It is a methodical investigative act, conducted on an already established file, structured according to a funnel approach that leads from the account of activities to legal characterization. The administration is not coming to discover your company: it is coming to verify hypotheses formed before summoning you and to obtain from you the constituent elements that the documents do not provide.

The resulting report is evidence that you have read and signed, which will follow the file through the adversarial phase or before the public prosecutor, and which will be extremely difficult to retract. Between the offense of obstruction under Articles L. 512-4 and L. 531-1 on one hand and the right to remain silent under Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the other, there is a zone of arbitration that is not determined by general rules, but by the specifics of your file and your personal exposure.

If you have received a summons, the useful moment is the one that precedes the interview, not the one that follows it. Our firm intervenes beforehand to analyze the summons, identify the cited texts, reconstruct what the administration already possesses, and measure your personal exposure under Article 121-2 of the Penal Code. For an initial discussion, our DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS litigation team is at your disposal.

This article is the first in a series of three. The second, Summons and report: the two documents that govern the interviewanalyze these two documents in detail and the rights they involve. The third, The five mistakes that make a case worse during a hearinglists the behaviors that turn a manageable case into a serious one.

Article written by Guillaume Leclerc, business lawyer in Paris, 34 Avenue des Champs-Élysées.

"To learn more":

• Litigation attorney for DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS matters
• DGCCRF hearing: summons and minutes, the two documents that govern the hearing
• DGCCRF and DDPP hearing: the five mistakes that make a case worse
• DGCCRF and DDPP voluntary hearing: preparation and defense guide
• DGCCRF inspection: the right of access to information under Article L. 512-8 of the Consumer Code
• Misleading commercial practices: a practical guide for SME executives
• DGCCRF and DDPP adversarial phase: notice of intent to sanction and strategy
• Defending an executive prosecuted for misleading commercial practices
• Publication of DGCCRF sanctions: name and shame and avenues for appeal
• Strengthening the investigative and sanctioning powers of the economic watchdog

‍