Background
People Vox accused two former employees, [N] and [R], and Lead Opinion—a company founded and led by [N], with [R] as a shareholder and employee—of unfair competition. On May 15, 2024, People Vox obtained an ex parte order from the president of a commercial court appointing a judicial officer to search for and seize specified material from the former employees’ personal or professional email accounts and from directories on Lead Opinion’s computers.
The former employees and Lead Opinion sought revocation of the order but were unsuccessful at first instance. On November 18, 2025, the Toulouse Court of Appeal reversed, revoked the ex parte order, annulled the judicial officer’s reports, directed that the seized material be returned, and prohibited People Vox from using it. The appellate court reasoned that the order had not been served on Lead Opinion, even though the measure was executed at [N]’s home, which was also the company’s registered office; the documents had instead been delivered to [N] and [R] in their personal capacities.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation quashed the appellate judgment in its entirety. Under Article 495, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, a copy of the application and the resulting ex parte order must be left with the person against whom the order operates.
The appellate court’s own findings established that copies of both documents were delivered to [N], Lead Opinion’s founder and president, before execution of the measure. The Court held that it did not matter in what capacity the documents were formally delivered to her. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 495, paragraph 3, without addressing People Vox’s remaining arguments, and remanded the case to a differently constituted panel of the Toulouse Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Article 495, paragraph 3, requires copies of an ex parte application and order to be left with the person against whom the measure operates.
- Delivery to a company’s founder and president before execution can satisfy that requirement even if the documents were formally delivered to her in a personal capacity.
- The Court quashed the entire appellate judgment and remanded; it did not finally resolve the underlying unfair-competition allegations or the remaining challenges to the evidence order.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes practical receipt over the formal designation attached to delivery when assessing compliance with Article 495, paragraph 3. A court may not treat service on a company as defective solely because documents received by its president were delivered to her in another stated capacity.
The ruling is particularly relevant to ex parte evidence-gathering measures, where compliance with procedural safeguards can determine whether seized material remains available. Because the case was remanded, the ultimate validity and consequences of the measure remain for the Toulouse Court of Appeal to reconsider.