Abstract
Whether it is the French Competition Authority (FCA) or the courts, anti-competitive practices can be sanctioned through various tools that have been strengthened by decision-making practices (Sect. 4.1.1). However, the question of the effectiveness and efficiency of sanctions is an essential element of the FCA’s competition policy, which explains the development of negotiated procedures, thereby fostering the effective enforcement of competition law (Sect. 4.1.2).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Article L. 464-8 of the Commercial Code.
- 2.
Article L. 464-2 I of the Commercial Code and Article 5 Council Regulation 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1.
- 3.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties.
- 4.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties, section 22.
- 5.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties, section 25–26.
- 6.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties, section 32.
- 7.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties, section 43–52.
- 8.
Article L. 464-2 I 4° of the Commercial Code.
- 9.
Article L. 464-5 of the Commercial Code.
- 10.
Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Setting of Financial Penalties, section 60–65.
- 11.
Article L. 464-2 III of the Commercial Code.
- 12.
Article L. 464-2 II of the Commercial Code.
- 13.
Article L. 464-1 of the Commercial Code.
- 14.
Article L. 464-2 I 5° of the Commercial Code.
- 15.
See for example: Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 15 November 2011, n°10-27388, Fnac vs. Accentiv’Kadeos; Court of Appeal of Paris, 7 December 2016, n°16/15228, OBUT.
- 16.
Articles L. 420-7, R. 420-3 et R. 420-4 of the Commercial Code.
- 17.
See for example: Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 6 February 2007, n°05-13204, Concurrence vs. JVC France.
- 18.
See for example: Court of Appeal of Paris, Pole 5, Chamber 11, 8 June 2018, n°16/19147, Orange vs. SFR.
- 19.
OECD, Note by the Secretariat, Relations Between Public Action and Private Actions for the Application of Competition Law, 15 June 2015.
- 20.
OECD, Relations Between Public Action and Private Actions for the Application of Competition Law, 15 June 2015.
- 21.
To our knowledge, there is no recent application of this text.
- 22.
Court of Appeal of Paris, 9 April 2002, Geodis Overseas France.
- 23.
FCA, La sanction des ententes et des abus de position dominante, Questions-réponses sur les sanctions pécuniaires, 16 May 2011.
- 24.
Assemblée Nationale, Commission des affaires économiques, Mercredi 6 mai 2015, Séance de 16 heures 15, Compte rendu n° 56, Présidence de M. François Brottes Président, Audition de M. Bruno Lasserre, président de l’Autorité de la concurrence, accompagné de Mme Virginie Beaumeunier, rapporteure générale de l’Autorité de la concurrence.
- 25.
The FCA has a very high rate of recovery of its sanctions: as of 31 December 2017, the recovery rate of penalties pronounced in 2015 was more than 95%, and in 2016 more than 99% (see the 2017 Annual Report of the FCA).
- 26.
Rapport sur l’appréciation de la sanction en matière de pratiques anticoncurrentielles, Members of the mission: Jean Martin Folz, former CEO of PSA; Christian Raysseguier, Chief Attorney General at the Court of Cassation; Alexander Schaub, lawyer, former Director General of Competition at the European Commission; Rapporteurs: Étienne Chantrel, trainee administrator of INSEE; Charles de Navacelle, lawyer at the bars of Paris and New York, JONES DAY.
- 27.
The report also indicates that others remained unfavourable, fearing that it would be impossible to punish managers and that only lower-level managers would in practice be punished.
- 28.
Article L. 481-2 paragraph 1 of the Commercial Code.
- 29.
Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 6 January 2015, n° 13-21.305 and 13-22.477, Orange Caraïbes.
- 30.
Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 27 September 2017, n°15-20.087.
- 31.
Court of Appeal, 21 May 2015, n° 2014/02694.
- 32.
Paris Pole 5, 4th Chamber, 14 December 2016, RG no 12/002045, Practices implemented by SNCF and Expedia Inc.
- 33.
Réparation du préjudice économique - Fiches méthodologiques, Cour of Appeal of Paris - October 2017.
- 34.
Draft article 1262 al. 4 of the Civil Code.
- 35.
French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-20 relating to practices implemented in the resilient flooring sector and No. 15-D-19 to practices implemented in the messaging and messaging sectors express.
- 36.
French Competition Authority, No. 16-D-05 and 16-D-06 on the installation and maintenance of professional kitchens; French Competition Authority, No. 16-D-15 on the exclusive importation of consumer products in Overseas France; French Competition Authority, No. 16-D-27 on the land assistance market.
- 37.
French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-01 on practices implemented in the tableware and cooking sector; French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-02 relating to practices implemented in the field of competition petanque balls; French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-06 relating to practices implemented in the natural gas supply, electricity and energy services sector; French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-14 relating to practices implemented in the sector of the distribution of consumer products in Overseas France; French Competition Authority, No. 17-D-20 relating to practices implemented in the resilient flooring sector.
- 38.
French Competition Authority, L’Opinion des Français sur les cartels, Sondage Ifop pour l’Autorité de la Concurrence, January 2018.
- 39.
ECJ, case C-516/15, Akzo Nobel, ECLI:EU:C:2017:314, but also ECJ, case C-597/13, Total, ECLI:EU:C:2015:613 for the paraffin wax market.
- 40.
Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 18 October 2017, n° 16-19.120 F-PB.
- 41.
Negotiation procedure aiming at obtaining a lower financial penalty, that was in force until 2015, when it was replaced by the transaction procedure, see Sect. 4.1.2.3.3 above).
- 42.
See Press release of 19 October 2017 relating to the settlement procedure and compliance programmes. See also, in this sense, point 464 of Decision No. 17-D-20 of 18 October 2017 on practices in the resilient floor coverings sector.
- 43.
Law no 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 relating to transparency, to the struggle against corruption and to modernisation of economic life.
- 44.
Penalties-Notice, 16 May 2011.
- 45.
French Competition Authority, decisions No. 02-D-23 of 27 March 2002, No. 02-D-59 of 25 September 2002, No. 03-D-46 of 30 September 2003, No. 06-D-03bis of 9 March 2006, No. 08-D-32 of 16 December 2008.
- 46.
French Competition Authority, decision No. 17-D-20 of 18 October 2017 relating to practices implemented in the resilient flooring sector.
- 47.
See for example French Competition Authority, decision No. 96-D-60 of 15 October 1996.
- 48.
Penalties-Notice, point 65.
- 49.
For an example, see Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, 17 July 2009, No. 08-84482.
- 50.
Court of Cassation, plenary assembly, 25 February 2000, Costedoat; Court of Cassation, plenary assembly, 14 December 2001, n° 00-82.066, Cousin; Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 2nd, 21 February 2008, n° 06-21.182.
- 51.
Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 1st, 12 July 2007, Bull. I, n° 270.
- 52.
Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 2nd, 20 December 2007 n° 07-13403.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
Correctional Court of Rouen, 11 September 2008, Travaux routiers en Seine-Maritime, Concurrences n° 1-2009, page 192, commentary of C. Lemaire.
- 56.
See nevertheless Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, 2nd Chamber, 4 December 2008, SA Eurelec Midi Pyrénées c/ Max D., R. G. n° 07/09250.
- 57.
- 58.
See Article L. 223-18, first paragraph for limited liability companies, L. 225-51-1, first paragraph, L. 225-56, first paragraph, L. 225-66 and L. 225-251 for public limited companies, L. 227-6, first paragraph and 3 for simplified joint stock companies, L. 222-2 for limited partnerships and L. 221-3 paragraph 1 for partnerships, 1850 of the Civil Code for civil societies.
- 59.
Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, 2nd Chamber, 4 December 2008, SA Eurelec Midi Pyrénées c/ Max D., R. G. n° 07/09250.
- 60.
Article L. 223-22 paragraph 3 for limited liability companies, L. 225-252 of the Commercial Code for public limited companies, L. 226-1 paragraph 2 and L. 227-8 for simplified joint stock companies, Article 1843-5 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code for civil companies.
- 61.
Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 1st, 2 February 1994, Bull. civ. I, no 37.
- 62.
Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 1st, 27 May 2003, Bull. civ. I, no 125; Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, 2nd, 18 February 2010, n° 08-19044.
- 63.
A. L. Sibony in its contribution to the report ‘For a reform of Competition Law’.
- 64.
A. L. Sibony in its contribution to the report ‘For a reform of Competition Law’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Boillot, T. et al. (2019). France. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Liability for Antitrust Law Infringements & Protection of IP Rights in Distribution. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17550-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17550-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17549-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17550-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)