The cited record supports the material proposition.
Airbus said in November 2022 that it agreed a further CJIP with French authorities over past matters related to Libya and Kazakhstan, with a fine of EUR 15,856,044 and no monitorship.
There is no monitorship obligation associated with this new CJIP.
- About
- Airbus SE
- Claim made by
- Airbus, company statement
- Published
- 30 November 2022
- Evidence score
- 69 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The company statement gives the fine, the countries, and approval by the President of the Tribunal Judiciaire of ParisS4. It says the new CJIP does not affect the 2020 settlementsS4. A CJIP is a public interest judicial agreement and not a conviction. The 2020 Airbus statement explains that such an agreement does not amount to an admission of liabilityS3. We could not read the French prosecutor's own release in this review, so the support rests on the company's disclosure of a court approved agreement. The claim is a factual statement about the agreement's terms, and nothing in the record we read contradicts it.
Current procedural position
CJIP signed on 17 November 2022 and approved by the President of the Tribunal Judiciaire of Paris on 30 November 2022, as stated by AirbusS4.
Record supporting the assessment
Airbus will have to pay a fine of 15,856,044 Euros.
This CJIP will have no adverse impact on the 2020 settlements reached with the French, UK and US authorities.
Conflicting or limiting record
No record located that conflicts with this assessment.
Evidence score: 69 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Airbus SE. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 17 | 30 | A company disclosure of a court approved agreement, not the French prosecutor's record. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 19 | 20 | The statement gives the fine, countries and monitorship terms. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 4 | 15 | No independent official record was read for this agreement. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 12 | 15 | A court approved CJIP settles the matter without a conviction. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 8 | 10 | No later change was found. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 9 | 10 | The statement is public on airbus.com. |
| Total | 69 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- Parquet National Financier and Airbus SETribunal Judiciaire de Paris on request of the Parquet National Financier. Criminal. Not published.Stage: CJIP approved on 30 November 2022, per Airbus.
- CJIP with a EUR 15,856,044 fine approvedS4
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Supported.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S4Tier B Airbus finalises CJIP agreement with French authoritiesAirbus SE. Company statement. 30 November 2022.Company account of the 2022 CJIP on Libya and Kazakhstan. It does not say whether Airbus admits the facts.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S3Tier B Airbus reaches agreements with French, U.K. and U.S. authoritiesAirbus SE. Company statement. 31 January 2020.Company account of the total penalties, the French terms and AFA audits over three years. It is the company's own description.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about Airbus SE
- Supported91The US Justice Department and the UK Serious Fraud Office said in January 2020 that Airbus used third-party business partners and agents to bribe officials and customers to win contracts.Regulator statement, 31 January 20203 records citedBribery
- Outdated77The US Justice Department said in January 2020 that it had charged Airbus with conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provision of the FCPA and that prosecution was deferred under a DPA.Regulator statement, 31 January 20203 records citedCorporate status