Related Rule
France
Practice Relating to Rule 52. Pillage
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, provides that, under international conventions, pillage is prohibited. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis (2).
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) prohibits pillage. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 1.7.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides: “Pillage is prohibited.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 2.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides that pillage is a prohibited method of warfare. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 85.
The manual also states: “Pillage constitutes an act of spoliation by which one or several military personnel appropriate objects for a personal or private use, without the consent of the owner of those objects. Pillage constitutes a war crime.” It stresses that war trophies or souvenirs might be qualified as theft when the owner does not consent to the appropriation. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 36; see also p. 85.
The manual further states that pillage is a crime for which there is no statute of limitation under the 1998 ICC Statute. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 45.
France’s Code of Military Justice (1982) punishes pillage and damage to commodities, goods or belongings committed by soldiers as a group. 
France, Code of Military Justice, 1982, Article 427.
France’s Code of Military Justice (2006) states:
Any pillage of or damage to food, commodities or effects committed in a group by soldiers … [with violence] is punished with life imprisonment.
In all other cases, pillage and destruction committed in a group is punished with ten years’ imprisonment. 
France, Code of Military Justice, 2006, Article L. 322-4.
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts: “Pillaging, with or without weapons, a city or locality, even when taken by assault, is punishable by 15 years’ imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-15.
The Penal Code also states, under the same section: “Unless they are justified by military necessity, the following offences committed against a person protected by the law of armed conflict constitute … war crimes: … [s]tealing [or] extorting … objects”. 
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-16.
During the First World War, France adopted a law to extend its jurisdiction to offences committed in invaded territory. On this basis, some German officers and soldiers were convicted by courts-martial of acts of pillage. 
J. Rampon, La justice militaire en France et le droit international humanitaire, Mémoire de DEA, Faculté de Droit, Université de Montpellier I, 1997–1998, p. 30, referring to cases of the Conseil de Guerre de Rennes, 26 February 1915 and of the Conseil de Guerre de Toulouse, 16 July 1916.
In the Szabados case before a French Military Tribunal in 1946, the accused, a former German non-commissioned officer of the 19th Police Regiment stationed in occupied France, was charged with, and found guilty of, inter alia, the count of pillage in time of war. The Tribunal found the looting of personal belongings and other property of civilians evicted from their homes prior to their destruction to be a violation of Article 440 of the French Penal Code, which dealt with pillage. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Clermont-Ferrand, Szabados case, Judgment, 23 June 1946.
In the Holstein case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, some of the accused, members of various German units, were found guilty of war crimes for having committed acts of looting and pillage, prohibited under the French Code of Military Justice. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Dijon, Holstein case, Judgment, 3 February 1947.
In the Bauer case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, a German gendarme was found guilty of war crimes for having stolen a sewing machine and other objects, which he took to Germany during the retreat from France. He was also found guilty of war crimes for having received stolen goods, when removing and using furniture which his predecessor in the gendarmerie post had stolen from a French inhabitant to whom the accused knew it belonged. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Bauer case, Judgment, 10 June 1947.
In the Buch case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, the accused, a paymaster during the occupation of France, was found guilty of a war crime for having received stolen goods. The German Kommandantur at Saint-Die had seized silverware which a French doctor had left behind in crates before leaving the locality. The goods were sold at an auction by the Kommandantur and part of it bought by the accused. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Buch case, Judgment, 2 December 1947.
In 1999, during the conflict in Kosovo, the French President criticized acts of the Serbian authorities in Kosovo, including pillage, and demanded that these acts cease. 
France, Speech by the President, AFP, Paris, 21 April 1999.
Under France’s Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes (1944), “the removal or export by any means from French territory of goods of any nature, including movable property and money” is likened to pillage. It is applicable to any perpetrator of the offence. 
France, Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes, 1944, Article 2(8).
In the Bommer case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, the parents of a German family were charged with, and convicted of, theft and receiving stolen goods belonging to French citizens. Two of the daughters were charged with, and convicted of, the second count of the indictment only. The Tribunal considered the offences of theft under Article 379 of the French Penal Code – referred to therein as “fraudulent removal of property” – and receiving stolen goods under Article 460 of the Code – referred to as “knowingly receiving things taken, misappropriated or obtained by means of a crime or delict” – as war crimes. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Bommer case, Judgment, 19 February 1947.
In the Lingenfelder case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, the accused, a German settler in France, was charged with pillage for the removal of horses and vehicles belonging to the owner of a French farm. Without giving reasons for such finding, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it did not amount to pillage. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Lingenfelder case, Judgment, 11 March 1947.
In the Baus case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, the accused, a land superintendent in occupied France, was found guilty of a war crime for theft under the terms of the French Penal Code and for pillage under the 1944 Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes. He took with him during the retreat to Germany the property of the owners of the farms that he was managing. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Baus case, Judgment, 21 August 1947.
In the Benz case before a French Military Tribunal in 1947, the accused, a couple of German settlers, were found guilty of theft and receiving stolen goods, which the Tribunal considered to be war crimes. On their return to Germany at the end of the Second World War, they took with them movable property belonging to French inhabitants. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Benz case, Judgment, 4 November 1947.
In the Neber case before a French Military Tribunal in 1948, the accused, a German settler in France (Lorraine), was found guilty of a war crime for having received crockery stolen by her nephew from a French woman, which she took with her when returning to Germany towards the end of the war. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Neber case, Judgment, 6 April 1948.
In its judgment in the Roechling case in 1948, the General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany held that the accused, the proprietor of a German industrial trust and Reich Commissioner for the iron industry of the departments of Moselle and Meurthe-et-Moselle, was guilty of war crimes, inter alia, for participation in the economic pillage of occupied countries. 
France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.