Lafarge SA (Lafarge), a company incorporated under French law, built a cement plant near Jalabiya, Syria, costing several hundred million EUR, commissioned in 2010. The plant is owned and operated by one of its subsidiaries, Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS), which is incorporated in Syria and, with more than 98%, owned by the parent company.
Between 2011 and 2014, while the civil war was raging, Lafarge decided to maintain its activity in Syria while other multinational corporations left Syria as early as 2012 when the European Union established an embargo.
According to press reports in 2016 reviewed by the Court of Cassation, continued activity was accompanied by the use of intermediaries to negotiate the payment of funds to or trade with armed factions. The company allegedly bought its raw materials from various jihadist groups, including the Islamic State, and paid compensation of EUR 13 million to transport these products and allow their employees to continue working.
In June 2017, the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office (Parquet de Paris) opened an investigation for financing a terrorist enterprise. On 28 June 2018, Lafarge was indicted by French investigating judges for complicity in crimes against humanity. Named as defendants were the Lafarge group itself (which owns 98% of LCS), its Syrian subsidiary, its CEO at the time of the events, its CEO until 2014, and its CEO since 2014. Lafarge argued that there were no grounds for prosecution as it was the responsibility of LCS and not Lafarge.
On 7 September 2021, the Court of Cassation ruled that there were grounds for indictment of the crimes against humanity allegedly committed by Lafarge.
France
République arabe syrienneOn 15 November 2016, the associations Sherpa and European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), as well as eleven Syrian employees of the company LCS, filed a civil suit to denounce the financing of a terrorist undertaking, complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, abusive exploitation of the labour of others and endangering the lives of others. The Minister of Finance also filed a complaint for customs offences due to the illicit nature of economic relations between France and Syria.
On 9 June 2017, a judicial investigation was opened and, following the initial decision, the company, the director of the Syrian subsidiary, and the group's security director requested the cancellation of their indictments to the investigating chamber. The chamber partially granted the request, which was appealed before the Court of Cassation. The associations also appealed to the Court of Cassation after they were refused the status of civil party by the investigating chamber.
On 7 September 2021, the French Court of Cassation pronounced a partial cassation. It concluded that Lafarge could be indicted for crimes against humanity. However, only the ECCHR can bring a civil action for complicity in crimes against humanity. The statutes of the Sherpa association state that it fights economic crimes. It can not be deducted that this also covers crimes against humanity. The Court of Cassation, therefore, ruled that Sherpa could not be a civil party. ECCHR and Sherpa cannot file civil suits for forced labour and servitude as it is not established that the victims (the Syrian employees) have unequivocally accepted that these associations act on their behalf, which is a requirement under the law. The decision of the investigating chamber to confirm the company's indictment for endangering the lives of Syrian employees is quashed and the investigating chamber will have to rule on this issue again.
There is no final judgement as of the time of writing (January 2022).
Code pénal, art. 121-7; code de procédure pénale art. 2-4
Complicity in crimes against humanity
Financing of terrorism
Codé pénal, art. 223-1; Code de procédure pénale, art. 593.
Risks caused to others
The Court of Cassation ruled that one can be an accomplice to crimes against humanity even if one does not intend to associate oneself with the commission of these crimes: it is necessary and sufficient to have had knowledge of the preparation or commission of these acts and that aid or assistance facilitated them; it is not necessary to belong to the criminal organisation nor to adhere to the conception or execution of the criminal plan.