Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

France

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How

  • 654 Accesses

Abstract

Article L. 420-2 of the Commercial Code includes two provisions aiming to punish abuse of dominance. The aforesaid Article is located in Title II named Des pratiques anticoncurrentielles of Book IV entitled De la liberté des prix et de la concurrence.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    “About anticompetitive conducts”.

  2. 2.

    “About freedom of prices and of competition”.

  3. 3.

    Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2 December 2008, n° 08-10.731.

  4. 4.

    Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 20 May 2014, n° 12-26.705; Court of Appeal of Paris, 30 June 2011, n° 09/10289.

  5. 5.

    Court of Appeal of Versailles, 8 April 2010, n° 07/07662.

  6. 6.

    Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 10 December 1996, n° 94-16.192; Court of Appeal of Nancy, 12 march 2014, n° 646/14.

  7. 7.

    See Sect. 5.5.1.

  8. 8.

    For an example: Court of Appeal of Montpellier, 25 October 2011, n° 10/0848.

  9. 9.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 23 February 2012, n° 08/15137.

  10. 10.

    Court of Appeal of Nancy, 12 March 2014, n° 646/14.

  11. 11.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 4 December 2008, n° 05/23983.

  12. 12.

    Competition Authority, Opinion n°15-A-06 of 31 March 2015, “relatif au rapprochement des centrales d’achat et de référencement dans le secteur de la grande distribution”.

  13. 13.

    See in particular, Competition Council, Decision n° 04-D-10 of the 1st\ of April 2004, “relative à des pratiques de la société UGC Ciné-Cité mises en œuvre dans le secteur de l’exploitation des salles de cinéma”.

  14. 14.

    Law “Galland”, n°96-588 of the 1st July 1996.

  15. 15.

    Law “Dutreil”, n°2005-882 of the 2 August 2005.

  16. 16.

    Law “Chatel”, n°2008-3 of the 3 January 2008.

  17. 17.

    Law “LME”, n°2008-776 of the 4 August 2008.

  18. 18.

    Constitutional Council, Decision of the 13 January, n° 2010-85 QPC, DARTY.

  19. 19.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 1st October 2014.

  20. 20.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 23 May 2013, n° 12/01166.

  21. 21.

    Commercial Court of Évry, 7 February 2013, n° 2009/F00727, Min. de l'Économie, de l'Industrie et de l'Emploi c/ SNC SPAL Boissons.

  22. 22.

    See also few recent Decisions: Commercial Chamber of Court of Cassation. 3 March 2015, Ministre de l’Economie c/PROVERA France et Ministre de l’économie c/Eurachan.

  23. 23.

    Commercial Court of Paris, 20 May 2014, n° 2013/070793.

  24. 24.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 7 June 2013, n° 11/08674; Court of Appeal of Rouen, 12 December 2012, n° 12/01200.

  25. 25.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 17 May 2002, n°2000-21198.

  26. 26.

    Court of Appeal of Paris, 12 September 2012, RG n°10/04096.

  27. 27.

    Article L 752-26 of the French Commercial Code.

  28. 28.

    Articles L.464-9 et R.464-9-1 à R.464-9-3 of the French Commercial Code.

  29. 29.

    Amount resulting from the law of 17 March 2014.

  30. 30.

    For a presentation of the assessement of the mentioned procedure see: Réactus of AFEC (Association Française d’Etude de la Concurrence) of 13 March 2014, “Actualité du droit des pratiques anticoncurrentielles de dimension locale”, André Marie, Chef du bureau politique de la concurrence à la DGCCRF, www.afec.asso.fr.

  31. 31.

    Decree n° 2009-140 of the 10 February 2009, concerning the application of the article L. 464-9 of the Commercial Code.

  32. 32.

    ECJ, case 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche/Commission, ECR 1979-461, pt 91; ECJ, case C-62/86, AKZO/Commission, ECR 1991 I-3359, pt 69; ECJ, case C-52/07, Kanal 5 et TV 4, ECR 2008 I-9275, pt 25; CJEU, case C-52/09, TeliaSonera Sverige, ECR 2011 I-527, pt 27; CJEU, case C-457/10 P, AstraZeneca AB/Commission, pt 74.

  33. 33.

    See for an example: Competition Authority, Opinion n° 14-D-02 of the 20 February 2014 about “des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la presse d’information sportive”, pt. 114.

  34. 34.

    Competition Authority, Opinion n° 10-A-29 of the 14 December 2010, about “le fonctionnement concurrentiel de la publicité en ligne”.

  35. 35.

    Competition Authority, Opinion n° 10-A-29 of the 14 December 2010, about “le fonctionnement concurrentiel de la publicité en ligne”, pt. 299.

  36. 36.

    Competition Authority, Opinion n° 10-A-29 of the 14 December 2010, about “le fonctionnement concurrentiel de la publicité en ligne”, pt. 331.

  37. 37.

    For an example: Court of Appeal of Paris, 18 December 2014.

  38. 38.

    Competition Council, décision n° 07-D-13 of the 6 of April 2007 about “de nouvelles demandes de mesures conservatoires dans le secteur du transport maritime entre la Corse et le continent”.

  39. 39.

    Competition Council, décision n°99-D-45 of the 30 of June 1999 about “des pratiques constatées dans le secteur du jouet”.

  40. 40.

    Competition Council, décision n°09-D-04 of the 27 of January 2009 about “des saisines de la société les Messageries Lyonnaises de Presse à l’encontre de pratiques mises en œuvre par le groupe des Nouvelles Messageries de la Presse Parisienne dans le secteur de la distribution de la presse”.

  41. 41.

    Competition Authority, décision 09-D-24 of the 28 of July 2009 about “des pratiques mises en œuvre par France Télécom sur différents marchés de services de communications électroniques fixes dans les DOM”.

  42. 42.

    Competition Authority, décision n°14-D-02 of the 20 February 2014, about “des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la presse d'information sportive”.

  43. 43.

    Competition Council, décision n°07-D-08 of the 12 of March 2007 about “des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de l’approvisionnement et de la distribution du ciment en Corse (montants des sanctions réformé par la Cour d'appel de Paris)”.

  44. 44.

    Competition Council, décision n°04-D-17 of the 11of May 2004, about “la saisine et à la demande de mesures conservatoires présentées par les sociétés AOL France SNC et AOL Europe SA”.

  45. 45.

    Competition Council, décision n°12-D-24 of the 13 December 2012, about “des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la téléphonie mobile à destination de la clientèle résidentielle en France métropolitaine”. This Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal of Paris (Court of Appeal of Paris, 19 Hune 2014, No 2013/01006) that stayed the proceeding and asked the European Commission for an opinion.

  46. 46.

    For an example: Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 3 March 2009 – n° 08-14.435, n° 08-14.464; Court of Appeal of Paris, 20 December 2012, n° 2011/05667 Court of Appeal of Paris, 20 December 2012, n° 2011/05667; Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 6 January 2015, 13-21.305 13-22.477 (Orange Caraïbe); Court of Cassation, 9 March 2009, n°08-14.435.

  47. 47.

    The whole statistic study, both concerning chart and graphics, was realised on one side using quantified data, available for consultation on the Reports of the Competition Authority, and on the other side analysing the judgements published on the Official journal of Competition, of Consumption and of Repression of frauds, if not otherwise explicitly stated.

  48. 48.

    Disclaimer: Those quantified data are the result of an empiric study realised in 2014 by the “Association Française d’Etude de la Concurrence Jeunes”, based on the judgements published and available on the web site of the main French legal editors. This empiric study doesn’t claim to be comprehensive and to represent the whole of the judgements given by French jurisdiction about anticompetitive conducts. However, we believe that the data of the study, might be a first base for a future reflection.

  49. 49.

    In reason of the peculiarity of those practises, see above.

  50. 50.

    “Conseil d’État”.

  51. 51.

    Council of State, 27 October 2006, M. Parent n°276069 n°277198 and n°277460.

  52. 52.

    Constitutional Council, 2013-331, QPC of 05 July 2013.

  53. 53.

    Commercial Code, art. L. 464-8.

  54. 54.

    Commercial Code, art. L. 464-7.

  55. 55.

    Official Journal, 15 November 2009, p. 19761.

  56. 56.

    Chambre Commerciale of the Court of Cassation, 26 March 2013, n°12-12685.

  57. 57.

    1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 8 July 2010, no 09-67013, Sté Doga c/ Sté HTC; 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 25 June 2014, no 13-23669.

  58. 58.

    Chambre Commerciale of the Court of Cassation, 12 June 2012, n°11-18852.

  59. 59.

    In the case, it gave rise to an action of the president of the Competition Authority based on the article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code and in which intervened the Ministry of Economy, being contested the faculty of the President of the Competition Authority to lodge the appeal. It was judged that, in reason of the fact that the President of the Competition Authority can behave on the basis of the article L. 442-6 III of the Commercial Code, he can use the legal remedies as the one stated on the article R. 442-1, and consequently lodge the appeal, in spite of the fact the second paragraph of the article L. 442-6 III, that enumerates the request that can be formulated, applies only to the Ministry and to the State Prosecutor (Court of Appeal of Caen, 1st Civil Chamber, 26 mars 2013, Président de l’ADLC c/ société ..., RG 11/03883, appeal formed against this judgement).

  60. 60.

    Chambre Commerciale of the Court of Cassation, 8 July 2008, n° 07-16761.

  61. 61.

    Court of Cassation, 13 May 2011, n°2011-126 QPC.

  62. 62.

    ECHR, 17 January 2012, n° 51255/08, Galec contre France.

  63. 63.

    Court of Cassation, 13 May 2011, n°2011-126 QPC; TC Paris, 14 May 2013, Société ... c/ Ministre, RG n°12/12993 (appeal formed against this judgement).

  64. 64.

    Court of Cassation, 13 May 2011, already mentioned.

  65. 65.

    Court of Appeal of Nîmes, 26 January 2012, RG 09-05026; Court of Appeal of Paris, 20 November 2013.

  66. 66.

    Avis n°03-A-21 of the 31 December 2003, Décision n°03-D-03 of the 16 January 2003; Décision n°08-D-06 of the 2 April 2008.

  67. 67.

    Web site of French Ministry of Justice, Pubblications. Link: http://www.justice.gouv.fr/publication/j21_projet_ord_reforme_contrats_2015.pdf.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jean-Claude Coulon & Associés, Paris, France

    Mathilde Boudou

  2. Fieldfisher, Paris, France

    Clément Hubert

  3. PDGB avocats, Paris, France

    Thibaut Marcerou

  4. CMS Bureau Francis Lefevre, Paris, France

    Georges Poulakos

  5. UGGC Avocats, Paris, France

    Michaël Vaz d’Almeida

  6. Freshfields and AFEC, Paris, France

    Martina Isola

Authors
  1. Mathilde Boudou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clément Hubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thibaut Marcerou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georges Poulakos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michaël Vaz d’Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martina Isola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathilde Boudou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Këllezi Legal, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  2. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  3. Kobel Avocat Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boudou, M., Hubert, C., Marcerou, T., Poulakos, G., d’Almeida, M.V., Isola, M. (2017). France. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46891-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-46890-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-46891-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation