Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Developments in the Application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by French Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 9))

  • 1053 Accesses

Abstract

In the French legal system, both the French national competition authority (l’Autorité de la concurrence) and the national courts apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. Regulation 1/2003 paved the way for a diversification of litigation and, since then, contractual disputes litigation, damages actions, interim relief proceedings, criminal or administrative sanctions proceedings are the daily reality of competition litigation in France. This chapter examines the past 5 years of developments in the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the French courts. Such developments have two purposes, in line with the mainstream evolutions at the EU level: ensuring the efficiency of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as well as French competition law; and making the interactions between private and public enforcement more consistent. One can question whether they achieve these goals. The author’s point of view is cautious in this regard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A. A. Foer and J. W. Cuneo, “Toward an Effective System of Private Enforcement”, in A. A. Foer, J. W. Cuneo (ed.), The International Handbook on Private Enforcement of Competition Law, Edward Elgar, 2010, p. 590 sqq., at pp. 592 and 593.

  2. 2.

    Eight tribunaux de commerce and eight tribunaux de grande instance from the following cities: Marseille, Bordeaux, Lille, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Nancy, Paris and Rennes.

  3. 3.

    For an overview on the topic, see: R. Amaro, Le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles. Étude des contentieux privés autonome et complémentaire devant les juridictions judiciaires, avant-propos G. Canivet, préf. M. Béhar-Touchais, Bruylant, 2014; M. Béhar-Touchais, C. Prieto, D. Bosco (eds), L’intensification du private enforcement, Travaux du Réseau Trans-Europe-Experts, SLC, 2016; M. Chagny, Droit de la concurrence et droit commun des obligations, préf. J. Ghestin, Dalloz, “Nouv. bibl. de theses”, 2004; E. Claudel, Ententes anticoncurrentielles et droit des contrats, th. Paris X, 1994, dir. M.-C. Boutard-Labarde; M. Dumarçay, La situation de l’entreprise victime dans les procédures de sanction des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, préf. B. Lasserre, Litec, “Bibl. Dr. entreprise”, 2010; S. Pietrini, L’action collective en droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, Université Paris-Ouest Nanterre La Défense, 2010.

  4. 4.

    The first paragraph of this Article provides that: “If any natural person fraudulently takes a personal and decisive part in the design, organisation or implementation of the practices referred to in Articles L. 420-1 and L. 420-2, such person shall be punished by a prison sentence of 4 years and a fine of 75,000 Euros.”

  5. 5.

    Case C-453/99, EU:C:2001:465.

  6. 6.

    Case C-295-04,EU:C:2006:461.

  7. 7.

    Case C-199/11, EU:C:2012:684.

  8. 8.

    S. Amrani-Mekki, “Inciter les actions en dommages et intérêts en droit de la concurrence: le point de vue d’un processualiste”, in L. Idot (ed.), Livre blanc sur les actions en dommages et intérêts pour infraction aux règles communautaires sur les ententes et les abus de position dominante, co l’Institut de droit comparé de Paris II, 13 June 2008, Concurrences, n° 2-2009, p. 11 seq.

  9. 9.

    These specific rules will be dealt with below.

  10. 10.

    Loi n° 2008-561 portant réforme de la prescription en matière civile.

  11. 11.

    Article 11 provides for the obligation of the parties and third parties to contribute to ascertaining the truth and empowers French courts to order the disclosure of evidence on the parties’ request.

  12. 12.

    Article 138 applies when the evidence is in the possession of a third party. It states that “If, during the proceeding, a party wishes to rely on a notarial deed or a deed under private signature to which he was not a party or a document held by a third party, he may request the judge, to whom the matter is referred to, to order the delivery of a certified copy or the lodging in court of the deed or the document.” Article 139 adds the following: “The request may be made without any formality. The judge, if he considers that the request is well-founded, will order the delivery or the production of the original, copy or extract of the deed, as the case may be, under the conditions and guarantees that he determines, if necessary, under a periodic penalty payment.”

  13. 13.

    Article 142 applies when the evidence is in the possession of another party (claimants or defendants). Article 142 extends the principles laid down by Articles 138 and 139 for the inter partes disclosure.

  14. 14.

    For an overview: A. Bénabent, “La mise en jeu de la responsabilité civile”, in Les sanctions judiciaires des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, 29 April 2004, LPA, 20 January 2005, n° 14, p. 31 seq.; S. Carval, “L’estimation du montant des préjudices concurrentiels. Un possible apport de la directive n° 2014/104 au droit commun de la responsabilité civile”, D., 2015, p. 1290 seq.; M. Chagny, “Quelle(s) réforme(s) et adaptation(s) du droit français? Approche critique et prospective ?” in M. Chagny (ed.), La réparation des dommages concurrentiels en France et en Europe: État des lieux et changements à venir, Paris, 13 May 2014, Concurrences, n°3-2014, p. 59 seq.; M. Chagny, “La place des dommages-intérêts dans le contentieux des pratiques anticoncurrentielles”, RLC, 2005/4, p. 186 seq.; G. Decocq, “Leçon sur la responsabilité civile du fait d’une pratique anticoncurrentielle”, in Leçons du Droit Civil. Mélanges en l’honneur de François Chabas, Bruylant, 2011, p. 197 seq.; F. Dreifuss-Netter, “Droit de la concurrence et droit commun des obligations”, RTD civ., 1990, p. 369 seq.; F. Dupuis-Toubol, “Action civile en matière de pratiques anti-concurrentielles: éléments de problématique”, in La réparation du préjudice causé par une pratique anti-concurrentielle en France et à l’étranger: bilan et perspectives, Cour de cassation, Paris, 17 October 2005; D. Fasquelle, “La réparation des dommages causés par les pratiques anticoncurrentielles”, RTD com., 1998, p. 763 seq.; J.-L. Lesquins, “L’établissement de pratiques anticoncurrentielles lors du procès civil”, in Les sanctions judiciaires des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, l’Université Paris I, 29 April 2004, LPA, 20 January 2005, n° 14, p. 17 seq.; C. Momège, L. Idot, “Application of Articles 81 & 82 EC by the French Ordinary Courts. A Procedural Perspective”, in C.-D. Ehlermann, I. Atanasiu (eds), European Competition Law Annual 2001: Effective Private Enforcement of EC Antitrust Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2003, p. 230 seq.; R. Saint-Esteben, “La réparation du préjudice économique résultant d’infractions au droit de la concurrence (point de vue d’un ‘juriste français’)”, in Risques, assurances, responsabilités, 26 April 2007.

  15. 15.

    Cass. com., 1 March 1982, No. 80-15834, Bull. Civ. IV No. 76.

  16. 16.

    E. g. CA Aix-en-Provence, ch, 2, 4 December 2008, SA Eurelec Midi Pyrénées v Max D., No. 07/09250.

  17. 17.

    The French legal form of limited liability corporation for major companies.

  18. 18.

    The most wide-spread French legal form of limited liability corporation for SME’s.

  19. 19.

    Article L. 225-251 paragraph 1 states that: “The directors and managing director shall have individual or solidary responsibility to the company or third parties either for infringements of the laws or regulations applicable to limited companies, or for breaches of the constitution, or for tortious or negligent acts of management.” Translation from: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/Traductions/en-English/Legifrance-translations.

  20. 20.

    The Cour de cassation based this protective case law on the ground of Article 1384 paragraph 5. In two famous cases (Costedoat and Cousin), the French Supreme Court granted employees a civil immunity in most situations where harm has been caused by their faults. In such situations, the employer’s strict liability is engaged (“responsabilité sans faute du commettant du fait du préposé”). See the Costedoat case: Cass. ass. plén., 25 February 2000; Grands arrêts, No. 217; Dalloz, 2000, p. 673, note P. Brun; Rev. trim. dr. civ, 2000, p. 582, obs. P. Jourdain; and the Cousin case: Cass. ass. plén., 14 December 2001, No. 00-82.066; Dalloz, 2002, p. 1230, note J. Julien; JCP G, 2002, II, 10026, note M. Billiau; Rev. trim. dr. civ., 2002, p. 109, obs. P. Jourdain.

  21. 21.

    Cass. civ. 2, 21 February 2008, No. 06–21.182; Dalloz 2008, p. 2125, note Laydu; JCP G, 2008, I, 186, No. 5, obs. Stoffel-Munck. See M.-P. et C. Lucas de Leyssac, “L’inquiétant Article L. 420-6 du Code de commerce et comment se rassurer”, in Les droit et le Droit. Mélanges à Bernard Bouloc, Dalloz, 2007, p. 651 seq.

  22. 22.

    Case C-453/99, EU:C:2001:465, at 22 and 24.

  23. 23.

    That states: “Any undertaking, agreement or contractual clause referring to a practice prohibited by Articles L. 420-1, L. 420-2 and L. 420-2-1 shall be invalid.”

  24. 24.

    Case C-430/93 and C-431/93, EU:C:1995:441, at 13 and 22; the ECJ laid down that national courts have the obligation to declare a contract void on their own motion, only if their national rules oblige them to do so.

  25. 25.

    Cass. ass. plén., 21 December 2007 (2 judgments) No. 04-10672 and 06-11343, Bull. ass. plén., No. 8 et 10; JCP G, 2008, I, 138, No. 9, obs. S. Amrani-Mekki; Rev. dr. contr., 2008/2, p. 327, obs. A. Bénabent; Resp. civ. et ass., 2008/3, comm. 112, note S. Hocquet-Berg; Defrénois, 2008, p. 1457, note E. Savaux; JCP G, 2008, II, 10006, note L. Weiller.

  26. 26.

    See for an overview, see R. Amaro, Le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, Bruylant, 2014; C. Lucas de Leyssac, G. Parléani, “L’atteinte à la concurrence, cause de nullité du contrat”, in Le contrat au début du XXIe siècle: études offertes à Jacques Ghestin, LGDJ, 2001, p. 601 seq.; M. Malaurie-Vignal, “Droit de la concurrence et droit des contrats”, D., 1995, p. 51 seq.; J. Mestre, B. Fages, “L’emprise du droit de la concurrence sur le contrat”, in Y. Picod (ed.), Droit du marché et droit commun des obligations, Rev. trim. dr. com., 1998, p. 71 seq.; B. Oppetit, “La liberté contractuelle à l’épreuve du droit de la concurrence”, Rev. sc. mor. pol, 1995/3, p. 241 seq.; D. Houtcieff, “La nullité des pratiques anticoncurrentielles à la croisée du droit de la concurrence et du droit des contrats”, in Regards croisés sur les pratiques commerciales, l’Université du Maine, 16 May 2003, Revue juridique de l’Ouest, 2005/1, p. 14 seq.

  27. 27.

    J. Normand, “Préface”, in A. Lacabarats, B. Mathieu, Les procédures d’urgence en droit des affaires, Joly éd., “Pratique des affaires”, 2010, p. IX.

  28. 28.

    Its provisions are written as follows: “If there is a legitimate reason to preserve or to establish, before any legal process, the evidence of the facts upon which the resolution of the dispute depends, legally permissible preparatory inquiries may be ordered at the request of any interested party, by way of a petition or by way of a summary procedure.” The “legally” measures are those available on the ground of Articles 232–284-1 CPC.

  29. 29.

    R. Amaro, “Le référé de droit commun en droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles: brève analyse du contentieux porté devant le juge français”, Concurrences, n° 4-2013, p. 216 seq.; E. Claudel, “Les injonctions”, in Les sanctions judiciaires des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, l’Université Paris I, 29 April 2004, LPA, 2005, n° 14, p. 23 seq.

  30. 30.

    Before the tribunaux de grande instance.

  31. 31.

    Before the tribunaux de commerce.

  32. 32.

    Their provisions are written as follows: “The president may always, even where confronted with a serious challenge, order in a summary procedure such protective measures or measures to restore (the parties) to (their) previous state as required, either to avoid an imminent damage or to abate a manifestly illegal nuisance.

  33. 33.

    Cass. com., 10 July 1989, Bull. n° 216, for a case where an abuse of dominant position was invoked.

  34. 34.

    Their provisions are written as follows: “In cases where the existence of the obligation is not seriously challenged, he may award an interim payment to the creditor or order the mandatory performance of the obligation even where it is an obligation to do a particular thing.”

  35. 35.

    T. com. Paris, 15e ch., 30 March 2015, RG no J2012000109, SARL DKT International c/ SA Eco-Emballages et Valorplast, Lettre Creda-concurrence, 13 April 2015, note A. Ronzano, Contrats, conc., consom. 2015, comm. 155, obs. G. Decocq.

  36. 36.

    Aut. conc., dec. No. 10-D-29, 27 September 2010, relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre par les sociétés Eco-Emballages et Valorplast dans le secteur de la reprise et de la valorisation des déchets d’emballages ménagers plastiques.

  37. 37.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 24 September 2014, RG no 12/06864, SARL DKT International c/ SA Eco-Emballages et Valorplast, Lettre Creda-concurrence, October 8th, 2014, obs. A. Ronzano, overruling T. com. Paris, 15e ch., 16 March 2012, RG no 2011023307, SARL DKT International c/ SA Eco-Emballages et Valorplast, Lettre Creda-concurrence, 10 March 2012, obs. A. Ronzano.

  38. 38.

    R. Amaro, Le contentieux privé des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, Bruylant, 2014, annexe 2.

  39. 39.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 27 April 2011, M. B. Merhi v SNC Société Presse Paris Services, Juris-Data no 2011-007393.

  40. 40.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 17 September 2014, SA La Montagne v SAS Aviscom, R. G. no 12/10322; Lettre Creda-Concurrence, 13 October 2014, note A. Ronzano; AJCA, 2015, p. 70, note M. Chagny.

  41. 41.

    Note that Article 145 of the Code de procédure civile only applies before the trial (see No. 16).

  42. 42.

    This Article establishes that: “In case of difficulty, or if (an argument of) a legitimate impediment is raised, the judge who ordered the delivery or the production in court may, on informal request made to him, retract or modify his decision. The third party may appeal against the new decision within 15 day as from its pronouncement.” The legitimate impediment could be the protection of business secrets.

  43. 43.

    For an overview: L. Idot, F. Zivy, “L’accès au dossier des autorités de concurrence dans le cadre des actions privées: État des lieux deux ans après l’arrêt Pfleiderer”, Concurrences, No. 3-2013, p. 34 seq.

  44. 44.

    It states: “The disclosure by one of the parties of information regarding another party or a third party, which it could only have known as a result of the notifications or consultations which have occurred, shall be punished by the penalties specified by Article 226-13 of the Penal Code. Any failure to comply with this prohibition expose the claimants (and sometimes the defendants) to a 15 000 euros fine or a 1 year jail sentence.”

  45. 45.

    Cass. com., 19 January 2010, No. 08-19761, Bull. civ. IV, No. 8; Contrats conc. consom., 2010, comm. 105, note G. Decocq; Rev. jurid. écon. publique, 2010, No. 677, comm. 36, note A. Friboulet; Concurrences, No. 2-2010, p. 136, obs. C. Lemaire, S. Naudin.

  46. 46.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 20 November 2013, Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence c/ SAS Ma Liste de courses et al., R. G. No. 12/05813; Lettre Creda-concurrence, November 18-22, 2013, note A. Ronzano; CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 24 September 2014, SA Eco-Emballages et Valorplast c/ Autorité de la concurrence et SARL DKT International; R. G. No. 12/06864; Lettre Creda-concurrence, 29 September – 3 October 2014, note A. Ronzano.

  47. 47.

    No. 2012-1270.

  48. 48.

    Its probable content was already known in 2012.

  49. 49.

    E. g. TGI Paris, ord., 15 January 2009, Conseil régional d’Île-de-France et Région Île-de-France, No. 08/55030, 08/59948, 08/59949; RLC, 2009/19, p. 97, note M. Chagny.

  50. 50.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-5, 2 July 2015, SA EDF et SA ERDF c/ SAS Nexans et SAS Prysmian, R. G. No. 13/22609; Lettre Creda-Concurrence, 29 June-3 July. 2015, note A. Ronzano.

  51. 51.

    It states that: “Member States shall ensure that a limitation period is suspended or, depending on national law, interrupted, if a competition authority takes action for the purpose of the investigation or its proceedings in respect of an infringement of competition law to which the action for damages relates. The suspension shall end at the earliest one year after the infringement decision has become final or after the proceedings are otherwise terminated.”

  52. 52.

    Cass. com., 1 March 1982, No. 80-15834, Bull. civ., No. 76; Cass. com., 15 June 2010, No. 09-1581; Dalloz, 2010, p. 2781, note Y. Utzschneider, H. Parmentier; Contrats conc. consom., 2010, No. 232, obs. Malaurie-Vignal; Gaz. Pal., 12 February 2011, No. 43, p. 43, obs. J. Philippe, M. Trabucci; Concurrences, No. 4-2010, p. 205, obs. C. Lemaire.

  53. 53.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 27 May 2015, n° RG 14/14758, Sté Lectiel (en liquidation) c/ SA Orange (anciennement SA France Telecom); in the same litigation and already supporting this point of view: Cass. com., 23 March 2010, No. 08-20427; CCE, 2010/12, comm. 122 note M. Chagny; Contrats conc. consom., 2010/5, comm. 131, G. Decocq; RTD. com., 2010, p. 317, note F. Pollaud-Dulian.

  54. 54.

    Cass. com., 15 November 2011, No. 10-21701; Contrats conc. consom., 2012/3, comm. 66, obs. M. Malaurie-Vignal; Bull. Joly Sociétés, 2012, p. 395, note C. Prieto; Rev. Sociétés, 2012, p. 37, note S. Prévost.

  55. 55.

    Cass. com., 6 October 2015, No.13-24.854, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2015:CO00871; AJCA, 2015, p. 526 note R. Saint-Esteben; Concurrences, No. 1-2016, note R. Amaro.

  56. 56.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 26 June 2013, Sté JCB Sales Ltd, Sté JC Bamford Excavators Ltd et Sté JCB Service v SA Central Parts, R. G. No. 12/04441; Lettre Creda-Concurrence, 15-19 July 2013, obs. A. Ronzano. See also the Arkopharma case, one of the “Vitamins cartel

    ” follow-on litigation, where the Nanterre Commercial Court of 1st instance ruled that a subsidiary, is liable as it had: “(…) obviously carried out the instructions of the authors of the cartel and participated in the commission of the offense.”; T. com. Nanterre, ch. 6, 11 May 2006, SA Les Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Arkopharma v sté Roche et sté F. Hoffmann La Roche AG, R. G. No. 2004\F02643, Rev. Lamy Concurrence, 2007/10, p. 62, note M. Chagny.

  57. 57.

    It states that: “The mandate may not be solicited by means of a public appeal on radio or television, nor by means of posting of information, by tract or personalised letter. Authorisation must be given in writing by each consumer.”

  58. 58.

    According to the association’s quantification.

  59. 59.

    Que choisir, “Action de groupe : 99,94 % des victimes de l’entente entre les opérateurs mobiles ne seront pas indemnisées!”, Press release of 13 October 2006 : http://www.quechoisir.org/communiques/99-94-des-victimes-de-n-entente-entre-les-operateurs-mobiles-ne-seront-pas-indemnisees/F0AA7CFAB02CD7AFC1257206002A862B.htm)

  60. 60.

    Cass. civ. 1, 26 May 2011, No. 10-15676; D., 2008, p. 1884, note N. Dupont; RTD com., 2011, p. 627, obs. B. Bouloc.

  61. 61.

    See among many contributions on the topic: S. Pietrini, L’action collective en droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles, Bruylant, 2012; M. Bacache, “Action de groupe et responsabilité civile. Loi n° 2014-344 du 17 mars 2014 relative à la consummation”, RTD civ., 2014, p. 450 seq.; M. Béhar-Touchais, “L’action de groupe à la française, voie prometteuse ou (trop) Limitée ?”, in M. Chagny (ed.), La réparation des dommages concurrentiels en France et en Europe : État des lieux et changements à venir, Concurrences, n°3-2014, p. 51 seq.; E. Claudel, “Action de groupe et autres dispositions concurrence de la loi consommation : un dispositif singulier”, RTD com., 2014, p. 339 seq.; C. Marechal, “Le volet ‘concurrence’ de la loi n° 2014-344 du 17 mars 2014 relative à la consommation”, Contrats conc. consom., 2014/ 5, dossier 4; N. Molfessis, “L’exorbitance de l’action de groupe à la française”, D., 2014, p. 947 seq.

  62. 62.

    Since the Distilbène case law: Civ. 1ère, 24 September 2009 (2 decisions), No. 08-16305, Bull. civ. I, No. 187; No. 08-10081, Bull. civ. I, No. 186; Dalloz, 2009, p. 2342, note I. Gallmeister; Rev. trim. dr. civ., 2010, p. 111, note P. Jourdain.

  63. 63.

    Cass. com., 15 May 2012, No. 11-18495.

  64. 64.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 16 February 2011, SCA Le Gouessant v SA Ceva Santé et SAS Ajinomoto Eurolysine, R. G. No. 08/08727.

  65. 65.

    It states that “The burden of proving that the overcharge was passed on shall be on the defendant, who may reasonably require disclosure from the claimant or from third parties.”

  66. 66.

    T. com. Paris, 15e ch., 16 March 2015, n° 2010073867, SAS Outremer Telecom c/ SA Orange Caraïbe et SA Orange (anciennement SA France Telecom).

  67. 67.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-5, 2 July 2015, SA EDF et SA ERDF c/ SAS Nexans et SAS Prysmian, R. G. No. 13/22609; Lettre Creda-Concurrence, 29 June – 3 July 2015 note A. Ronzano.

  68. 68.

    Cons. conc., dec. No. 07-D, 26 July 2007 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le cadre de marchés de fourniture de câbles à haute tension.

  69. 69.

    See CA Paris, ch.5-4, February 16th, 2011, RG No. 08/08727, SCA Le Gouessant c/ SA Ceva Santé et SAS Ajinomoto Eurolysine confirmed by Cass. com., 15 May 2012, n° 11-18.495.

  70. 70.

    CA Paris, ch. 5-4, 27 May 2015, R. G. 14/14758, Sté Lectiel (en liquidation) c/ SA Orange (anciennement SA France Telecom).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris Descartes – Sorbonne Paris Cité (CEDAG), Paris, France

    Rafael Amaro

Authors
  1. Rafael Amaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafael Amaro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Sector 5, Romania

    Adriana Almășan

  2. School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

    Peter Whelan

Glossary and Abbreviations

Glossary and Abbreviations

Name in French

Translation into English

Abbreviation used in the footnotes or in the text

Action de groupe

Group action introduced by the Loi Hamon in the Consumer Code at Articles L. 423-1

-

Autorité de la concurrence

French competition authority

“Aut. conc.”

Code civil

Civil Code

“C. civ.”

Code de commerce

Commercial Code

“C. com.”

Code de la consommation

Consumer Code

“C. consom.”

Code de procédure civile

Code of Civil Procedure

“C. pr. civ.”

Conseil constitutionnel

French Constitutional court

“Cons. const.”

Conseil de la concurrence

Former French competition authority, replaced in 2009 by the Autorité de la concurrence

“Cons. conc.”

Cour d’appel

Court of Appeal

“CA” followed by the indication of the city, e. g. CA Paris and of its division when known e. g. “ch. 5-4” for section 4 of the pole 5 or “ch. civ.” for the “civil division”)

Cour de cassation

French Supreme Court for civil, commercial and criminal matters

“Cass.”, followed by the abbreviation of the Court’s division, e. g. “com.” for “commercial division”, “civ. 1” for “1st civil division”

Loi

Act

“Loi” followed by the name of the minister who presented the act

Référé

French fast track proceedings

réf.

Tribunal de commerce

Commercial court of first instance

“T. com.” followed by the indication of the city

Tribunal de grande instance

Civil court of first instance

“TGI” followed by the indication of the city

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Amaro, R. (2017). Recent Developments in the Application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by French Courts. In: Almășan, A., Whelan, P. (eds) The Consistent Application of EU Competition Law. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47382-6_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47381-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47382-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation