Before 2005, French personal-injury practice operated on a patchwork of incompatible classifications. Some courts grouped damages under the historic civil-code labels (dommage matériel, dommage moral, pretium doloris); others used the social-security ITT/IPP framework borrowed from workplace-injury schemes; still others borrowed from the medical-expert lexicon. The result was that comparable injuries could be priced through visibly different categories in different tribunals, undermining both predictability and the equality-of-arms principle that sits at the heart of French civil procedure.
The reform was driven by the Court of Cassation itself. In 2003 the First President convened a working group under the chairmanship of Conseiller Jean-Pierre Dintilhac, head of the Second Civil Chamber, to propose a unified nomenclature for all heads of loss in cases of dommage corporel (personal injury). The group reported in July 2005, and its recommendations — the nomenclature Dintilhac — were rapidly adopted by appellate practice.
The nomenclature is not statutory. There is no decree imposing it, and Parliament has never legislated its terms. But the Cour de cassation has, in a long line of decisions from 2008 onward, treated visible reasoning by reference to the Dintilhac heads as a quality-control marker, and judgments that ignore the framework have been quashed for insufficient reasoning. The Fonds de Garantie, ONIAM, and major liability insurers settle on its terms; the rapporteur committees that produce the periodic Barème indicatif (the Mornet schedule) calibrate to its categories. In all but name, it is now the law.
What makes the Dintilhac approach distinctive in comparative terms is its insistence on individualised pricing of separately listed heads of loss. Where the UK collapses most non-economic harm into a single “general damages” figure, and Germany issues a single Schmerzensgeld figure for the totality of non-pecuniary injury, France prices the deficit fonctionnel permanent, the souffrances endurées, the préjudice esthétique, the préjudice d'agrément, and half a dozen other heads each on their own merits.
Twenty-nine numbered heads of loss, organised by time (pre- vs post-consolidation) and nature (patrimonial vs extra-patrimonial). No statutory caps — full judicial discretion guided by the Barème Mornet. Centred on the DFP (déficit fonctionnel permanent), priced from AIPP medical points. Universally adopted by courts, FGTI, ONIAM, and insurers since the late 2000s, though never enacted as legislation.
Background — the 2005 reform
The Dintilhac group's mandate was to consolidate, not to innovate. The headings it adopted already existed in scattered form across the case law; what the group added was a numbered, exhaustive structure that left no room for unclassified loss and no overlap between heads. The published report — Rapport du groupe de travail chargé d'élaborer une nomenclature des préjudices corporels, La Documentation française, 2005 — runs to roughly two hundred pages and is still the principal scholarly reference.
The reform was reinforced by two parallel developments. The Loi Badinter of 5 July 1985 had already established a no-fault offer regime for road-traffic victims, which required insurers to make a structured offer covering “all heads of loss” — the Dintilhac structure gave that obligation visible content. ONIAM, the medical-accident compensation body created in 2002, similarly needed a uniform taxonomy for its no-fault offers and adopted Dintilhac immediately on publication.
Structure of the nomenclature
The nomenclature distinguishes two sets of victims (direct and indirect —victimes directes and victimes indirectes or par ricochet) and, within each, applies the same two-axis grid. For direct victims, the structure is:
| Period | Patrimonial (economic) | Extra-patrimonial (non-economic) |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-consolidation (temporary) | DSA — dépenses de santé actuelles FD — frais divers PGPA — pertes de gains professionnels actuels | DFT — déficit fonctionnel temporaire SE — souffrances endurées PET — préjudice esthétique temporaire |
| Post-consolidation (permanent) | DSF — dépenses de santé futures FLA — frais de logement adapté FVA — frais de véhicule adapté ATP — assistance par tierce personne PGPF — pertes de gains professionnels futurs IP — incidence professionnelle PSU — préjudice scolaire / universitaire | DFP — déficit fonctionnel permanent PEP — préjudice esthétique permanent PA — préjudice d'agrément PSX — préjudice sexuel PE — préjudice d'établissement PEE — préjudice exceptionnel |
Indirect victims (close relatives) have their own parallel grid covering loss of income from the victim's death (PR — préjudice économique par ricochet), funeral costs, and the extra-patrimonial heads of préjudice d'affection and préjudice d'accompagnement.
Patrimonial vs extra-patrimonial
The patrimonial heads compensate quantifiable economic loss — medical expenses, home and vehicle adaptation, third-party care, lost earnings, and the broader incidence professionnelle (career impact beyond direct earnings). They are evidenced by receipts, expert reports, and actuarial computations using the Gazette du Palais barometric scales for capitalisation.
The extra-patrimonial heads compensate non-economic harm. The DFP dominates by value. Souffrances endurées, préjudice esthétique (temporary and permanent), préjudice d'agrément (loss of leisure activities the victim previously practised), préjudice sexuel (functional, libidinal, and procreative), and préjudice d'établissement (loss of the prospect of forming a family) round out the structure. The préjudice exceptionnel is a residual catch-all for genuinely atypical losses that fit no other head.
Temporary vs permanent
The pivot is consolidation. Pre-consolidation losses are valued day-by-day or episode-by-episode, anchored in the medical expert's reconstruction of the recovery period. The DFT (déficit fonctionnel temporaire) is itself sub-graded into total, partial-class-IV, partial-class-III, partial-class-II, and partial-class-I depending on the percentage incapacity at each stage of recovery, with daily rates (typically €25–€30 per day for total DFT in 2026 figures) multiplied by the relevant number of days.
Post-consolidation losses are by definition permanent. The DFP captures the residual lifelong functional, psychological, and relational impact, scored by AIPP percentage and priced per point.
DFP, AIPP, and souffrances endurées
The DFP (déficit fonctionnel permanent) is the central extra-patrimonial head. It is calculated in two steps. First, a court-appointed medical expert assesses the permanent impairment as a percentage — the AIPP (atteinte permanente à l'intégrité physique et psychique). Second, the percentage is converted to a monetary figure by reference to the Mornet schedule, which sets per-point values that rise with both severity (the per-point figure is higher at 50% AIPP than at 10%) and youth (a twenty-year-old's point is worth more than a sixty-year-old's, reflecting the longer remaining life expectancy).
Souffrances endurées (SE) is the pre-consolidation pain-and- suffering head. The medical expert grades it on a seven-point scale: très léger (1/7), léger (2/7), modéré (3/7), moyen (4/7), assez important (5/7), important (6/7), très important (7/7). Each grade has a customary monetary range, with significant variation between courts of appeal but a broadly consistent national gradient.
| SE grade | Typical range (2026) |
|---|---|
| 1/7 — très léger | €1,000–€2,000 |
| 2/7 — léger | €2,000–€4,000 |
| 3/7 — modéré | €4,000–€7,500 |
| 4/7 — moyen | €7,500–€13,000 |
| 5/7 — assez important | €13,000–€25,000 |
| 6/7 — important | €25,000–€45,000 |
| 7/7 — très important | €45,000–€80,000+ |
Barème Mornet and Fonds de Garantie pricing
The Barème Mornet — formally Référentiel indicatif de l'indemnisation du préjudice corporel des cours d'appel — is published in successive editions and is the working benchmark for DFP, SE, préjudice esthétique, and the smaller extra-patrimonial heads. It is indicative, not binding, but a court of appeal that strays materially from its ranges without articulated reasons risks reversal.
The Fonds de Garantie des Victimes (FGTI) and ONIAM publish their own Dintilhac- aligned schedules. FGTI in particular is bound by statute to make complete and fair offers, and its internal rates are often regarded as a reliable lower bound on what a court would award. Practitioners frequently cite FGTI offers in negotiation with private liability insurers.
Litigation impact and pricing trends
Twenty years on, the Dintilhac structure is fully embedded. Every personal-injury judgment of any substance is now organised head by head. Insurance offers under the Loi Badinter must address each head explicitly. Expert reports follow the same template. The pricing has drifted upward modestly in real terms, with the most visible movement at the top end of the DFP scale, where catastrophic-injury awards in cases of full quadriplegia or severe TBI in young claimants now routinely exceed €500,000 for that head alone, with total awards (including future care and lost earnings capitalised) often passing €5 million.
Reform pressure is muted. There are periodic proposals to enact the nomenclature in statutory form, most recently in the 2017 Réforme de la responsabilité civile draft, which would have codified Dintilhac in a new Title of the Code civil. The draft has not been enacted, but the political consensus around the substance of the nomenclature is strong enough that codification, when it comes, is unlikely to disturb the working categories.
Related reading
- France personal injury overview
- The German Schmerzensgeldtabelle
- Whiplash claim values across jurisdictions
Frequently asked questions
What is the nomenclature Dintilhac?
Is the Dintilhac nomenclature mandatory?
What is consolidation?
What is the DFP?
What is the AIPP?
How do the souffrances endurées (SE) work?
What is the Barème Mornet?
How does the Fonds de Garantie pricing interact?
Sources
- Rapport du groupe de travail chargé d'élaborer une nomenclature des préjudices corporels (Dintilhac, 2005), La Documentation française
- Loi n° 85-677 du 5 juillet 1985 (Loi Badinter) — offer regime for road-traffic victims
- Code de la santé publique, art. L.1142-1 et seq. — ONIAM no-fault medical-accident compensation
- Code des assurances, art. L.421-1 et seq. — Fonds de Garantie des Victimes (FGTI)
- Mornet, B. — Référentiel indicatif de l'indemnisation du préjudice corporel des cours d'appel (current edition)
- Cour de cassation, 2ème ch. civ., decisions on Dintilhac compliance and reasoning standards
- Gazette du Palais — barèmes de capitalisation (annual)
- Avant-projet de réforme de la responsabilité civile (Chancellerie, 2017)