French Competition Law provides a comprehensive review of the French rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, commercial negotiation, abuses of a dominant position, procedure and merger control.

French Competition Law

The most important overall reform of the French economy resulting from the EGalim Law lies in the provisions of Article 17 authorizing the government to take any measure within its scope by way of ordinance to modify the law on commercial negotiations. Thereafter, the DGCCRF issued and submitted for consultation two draft ordinances amending the rules for the formalization of the commercial relati …

Ordinance No 2019-359 of 24 April 2019 recasting Title IV Book IV of the Commercial Code.

The Commercial Code section entitled “Transparency and Restrictive Practices” (Book IV, Title IV) regulates vertical commercial relations between professionals. Firstly, these provisions ensure price transparency between economic operators and, to this end, introduce certain formal requirements into commercial dealings. Failure to respect these requirements can lead to fines. Hence invoices must comply with certain specifications, and sellers must communicate their general terms of sale if such conditions have been established, and draft a single document organizing all their contractual relations with distributors ("convention écrite"). Secondly, Title IV penalizes an array of behavior capable of negatively affecting relations between trading partners. In this context, it seeks to prevent restrictive practices such as resale below cost and resale price maintenance. Lastly, it prohibits abuses of dependence with the aim of tackling abuses of buyer power such as abusive delisting and protecting suppliers in a position of weakness. Whether civil, administrative or criminal penalties apply, these rules impose a per se prohibition regardless of the behavior's impact on the market. The Competition Authority does not have jurisdiction over conduct coming under this heading unless it also involves anticompetitive practices.

The strict formal requirements of these regulations and the automatic prohibitions they set forth have elicited so much criticism that one governmental report even suggested they be repealed . The most recent lessons of economic theory show that resale below cost and resale price maintenance are not always harmful, and that outright prohibition is unwarranted. It seems that resale below cost cannot last for very long periods except on the part of an undertaking with significant market power, but market power is already subject to laws on anticompetitive practices. Resale price maintenance can be necessary for new products that need to be launched through a stable distribution network, which can then guarantee the quality of the services provided by network members. Imposed prices are not likely to infringe upon competition as long as there is lively inter-brand competition on the market and market penetration is not frustrated by entry barriers. Likewise, many forms of selective pricing can be beneficial and increase the common good, as they allow a variety of distribution channels to be maintained. Any automatic prohibition should therefore be excluded. Conversely, the market transparency that pricing regulations tend to implement may prove anticompetitive on certain markets, as it eliminates the uncertainty and confidentiality that create the conditions for vigorous competition. Price transparency can lead to other pernicious effects as well. For example, the international competitiveness of French undertakings is not increased by the fact that under Article L. 441-1, they must make their general terms open and available, while those of their competitors abroad remain opaque - instead, it places French business in an inferior competitive position while simultaneously depriving them of the negotiating flexibility enjoyed by firms from other countries. 

Over the last thirty years the law on commercial negotiations underwent tremendous change with various successive stages of consolidation since the Ordinance of 1986, prior to the reversal of some those reforms in more recent times. Consequently, after fighting to conserve the right to adopt the provisions on restrictive practices in negotiations with the enactment of European Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002, the French authorities have recently developed a more reserved stance with the aim of limiting the negative effects of those practices: the resale below cost threshold was lowered (Chatel Law of 3 January 2008 ) and the LME law of 4 August 2008 has repealed the per se prohibition of discriminatory practices .

Rapport Villain sur les relations entre l'industrie et la grande distribution (Villain report on relations between production and mass retailing), Economy Ministry, January 1995. 

Before being raised by the EGalim Law of 30 October 2018.

And the list of abuses of dependence, for which there have been 13 cases, has been reduced to a strict minimum.

Specific context/controversy. 

The provisions on price transparency and restrictive practices thus seek to impose fairness in the relationship between commerce and industry, a relationship that has recently undergone tremendous change. Initially, an all-powerful industry was faced with a fractured commercial structure and consequently the competition rules were aimed at controlling restrictive practices on the part of suppliers and producers particularly with a view to reducing discrimination between the different forms of distribution (mass retail distributors and traditional traders). However, the nature of this relationship has now been turned on its head, with commercial outlets enjoying greater influence as a result of striking mutations in the structure of distribution, namely the growth of mass retailing networks, the growth of specialized integrated distribution outlets, and the disappearance of smaller downtown outlets. As a result some industries have found themselves in a position of economic weakness and dependency vis-à-vis certain distributors. In an attempt to restore the balance, the Ordinance of 1986 sought for the first time to control abuses of economic dependence. However, its provisions failed to truly protect manufacturers from the abusive practices of certain mass retailers. Subsequent modifications of the ordinance were limited, however, to attempts to regulate payment deadlines  and general terms of sale . More ambitious reforms were subsequently introduced but failed to achieve the desired results.

Ordinance of 1 December 1986. 

It wasn't until the passage of Law No 96-588 of 1 July 1996, known as the Galland Law , that reforms were instituted that truly reflected the new reality of the manufacturer-distributor relationship. Apart from the introduction of a new anticompetitive practice (on abusively low pricing), it was essentially concerned with the provisions of Book IV of the Commercial Code. Its declared aim was to ensure fairness and balance in trade relations. To that end, it introduced a new class of anticompetitive offense, abuse of dependence, and repealed the prohibition on refusals to sell between professionals . Producers thus once again had  the freedom to sell or not, the quid pro quo of distributors' freedom to purchase. However, as these provisions did not provide an effective remedy against abusive practices in the area of mass retailing, the legislature once again intervened to insist on more ethical commercial practices.

The Law of 15 May 2001, know as the NRE law (New Economic Regulations)  created new types of abuse of dependence, including fictitious commercial cooperation, and the abuse of buying or selling power. In order to guarantee the effectiveness of the new law, the powers of the Minister of the Economy were reinforced; the Minister may now bring actions for the annulment of contracts under this heading. At the same time, the Commission for the Review of Commercial Practices was set up although its purpose is mainly consultative. 

Law No 96-588 of 1 July 1996 on fairness and balance in commercial relations, OJ 3 July 1996.

On the penalty for refusal to sell on the basis of civil liability law, see in particular, Cass. com., 18 December 2001, LawLex200200000054JBJ; CA Rouen, 23 May 2002, LawLex200300000557JBJ. 

Galland Law and NRE Law.

Mass retail distributors in France, representing a highly concentrated sector, have for many year been unduly appropriating part of the profit margins of their suppliers. The extent of such transfers of resources has enabled mass market retailers to develop and finance their international expansion but has also weakened the position of manufacturers. The Galland Law aimed to put an end to this vicious cycle. By defining the resale below cost threshold clearly and indisputably, it effectively put an end to the spiral of declining prices and slowed down the margin transfer effect favoring distributors over producers, but very quickly reached its limits due to the perverse effects that followed in its wake. It in fact led suppliers to set their price terms by favoring those conditional elements of remuneration which were not able to be passed on to consumers in the retail prices, such as off-invoice rebates and commercial cooperation agreements, to the detriment of invoiced rebates which could be incorporated into the retail price. Similarly, distributors were forced to sell at the resale below cost threshold while at the same time demanding off-invoice payments from their suppliers in order to remain profitable. The increase in retail prices and the continuation of the transfer of profits led to another intervention by the public authorities.

Title VI of the Dutreil Law of 2 August 2005 in favor of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) , aimed at the “modernizing of commercial relations”, attempted a new reform of relations between distributors and suppliers. The government hoped that its reform would generate a 5% decline in the prices of national brand consumer goods in 2006 in hypermarkets, i.e. a total decline in the prices of mass-market consumer goods of 4% . According to the Ministry for SMEs,  prices of brand-name products effectively experienced a notable deceleration from a variation of + 0.80% per year in January 2006 to - 1.37% in November 2006 for a rate of inflation of branded goods of + 4% per year in May 2003 .

This was a liberal reform: for sales from producers to distributors the freedom to negotiate terms of sale was re-established and resale price competition was partially restored by facilitating the passing on of a portion of the back margins to consumers through their integration in the resale below cost threshold. However, the law included an extremely complex mechanism to restore price competition at the resale stage by authorizing the gradual attribution in the calculation of the resale below cost threshold of the excess of back margins. In addition, the Dutreil Law aimed to simplify the application of criminal law and procedure in economic matters by implementing settlement processes at the initiative of the DGCCRF (General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control) - and the Public Prosecutor's office ("le Parquet").

Law No 2005-882 of 2 August 2005, OJ, 3 August 2005, 12639.

Statements made by Mr. Dutreil on 6 September 2005, La Tribune, 7 September 2005, 15; Le Figaro Économie, 7 September 2005; Les Echos, 7 September 2005, 32. The government intended to monitor the effectiveness of the decline through the index developed by the Institut Panel International in partnership with the trade journal LSA and publish it on a monthly basis.

Dutreil Law.

Adopted on 3 January 2008, the law “for the development of competition for the benefit of consumers” reforming the regulation of commercial relations reflected a retreat of state interventionism by giving resellers a greater margin of maneuver in the fixing of their prices. The key provision of the law “aimed at restoring consumer buyer power” concerned the resale below cost threshold. Below-cost resale remained prohibited but the methods of calculation were considerably relaxed. The new version of Article L. 442-2 [now Article L. 442-5] of the Commercial Code laid down the “triple net” price principle: The actual purchase price is the unit price appearing on the invoice net of the totality of invoiced discounts, off-invoice rebates and payments for services rendered by the distributor to the supplier.

At the same time, the Chatel Law strictly regulated the definition of services that distributors could provide and increased the formal requirements of commercial negotiations. In effect it replaced the - already excessively formal - single commercial cooperation agreement with an extremely wide-ranging “convention unique”  (single commercial agreement) covering not only the terms under which the sale of products or provision of services, resulting from commercial negotiations, operated, but also any service which promoted the marketing of the products or services and did not come under buying and selling obligations and “distinct services”. A doubt remained, however, with respect to whether the general terms of sale had to be included in the single commercial agreement. As the parliamentary committee papers were inconsistent in this area , it was considered judicious to include them as a precaution. The drawing up of the agreement was subject to very detailed formalities which were very difficult to comply with in practice. The failure to provide the other party with the general terms of sale was de-criminalized and constituted a civil offense. Civil sanctions were also imposed where a reseller had inflicted on its supplier, in periods of sharp rises in the price of certain agricultural raw materials, abusively low transfer prices. And, the law qualified as an abuse of dependence the imposing of disproportionate penalties on a trading partner for the breach of contractual commitments.

The Chatel Law did not fully satisfy the mass retail sector despite the considerable lobbying efforts engaged for the freedom to negotiate general terms and conditions unrestricted. It retained the principle of the requirement of consideration in negotiations with the general terms and conditions of sale continuing to be the “foundation of the commercial negotiation”.

The evolution of the law on price transparency and restrictive practices had undergone a marked decrease in interventionism, but liberalization was far from being fully achieved. De-criminalization was limited and the Minister of the Economy maintained a decisive role. 

In effect, although the Chatel Law had decriminalized the non-communication of the general terms of sale, the rules on price transparency remained subject to criminal law: the failure to conclude a single commercial agreement (which replaced the contract on commercial services and distinct services) within the period set out in former Article L. 441-7 and non-compliance with the rules on invoicing, payment deadlines and resale at a loss remained subject to criminal sanctions. 

In favor of the inclusion of general terms of sale, Opinion No 408 by Mr. Bertrand Plancher, submitted on behalf of the Commission of Laws of the National Assembly on 14 November 2007 which states: "The first part illustrates the more general scope of this Convention, since it includes the terms and conditions of sale (1º of section I). In doing so, the commercial relationship will be formalized within a single contractual document, which will facilitate the administrative and, where appropriate, judicial control of its application. It is indeed a significant step forward compared to current law, which provided, inter alia, that the commercial cooperation contract may be composed of an annual framework agreement plus other implementation agreements". However, and giving the impression that the general terms and conditions do not need to be included, Report No 111 (2007-2008) by Mr. Gérard Cornu, compiled on behalf of the Commission of Economic Affairs, submitted on 5 December 2007: "The government also intended to promote the convergence of the negotiations by providing, in paragraph I of Article L. 441-7: - that it is expressed through a single agreement laying down all the elements of the discussion : i.e. the commercial negotiation (which enshrines the non-negotiable nature of the general terms and conditions themselves)". It is regrettable to say the least that a text which provided for criminal sanctions is so lacking in clarity and that parliamentary debates give rise two or even several different interpretations.

Chatel Law.

A new milestone was reached with the adoption of the Law for the Modernization of the Economy (LME) of 4 August 2008 . The law instituted the freedom to negotiate and to set general terms and conditions. The principle according to which the terms and conditions of sale constitute the foundation of the commercial negotiation remained however. The text was moderated thanks to the removal of both the provision relating to the definition of categories of buyers by decree thus allowing suppliers freedom of choice in the matter, and the obligation to justify special terms of sale by the provision of specific services. The notion of services distinct from marketing services introduced by the Dutreil Law was removed and replaced by “other obligations intended to promote the commercial relationship between the supplier and the distributor or the provider of services”, which contribute to the setting of the selling price. Former Article L. 441-7 [now Article L. 441-3] of the Commercial Code was totally recast and now fixed what was to be included in a commercial negotiation: i.e. a focus on the obligations of the parties with a view to determining the price at the end of the commercial negotiation. 

 Law No 2008-776 of 4 August 2008, OJ 5 August 2008, 12471.

Law for the modernization of the economy (LME Law).

The law on commercial negotiations was amended by the law on consumer protection of 17 March 2014 . The trend towards a more liberal approach to relations between distributors and suppliers found in the earlier reforms fades with more interventionist legislation. Without completely upsetting the balance established by the Law for the Modernization of the Economy, the Hamon Law brings a number of clarifications and changes. Specifically, it substantially tightens up the sanctions for breaches of the requirements laid down in the Commercial Code on price transparency, restrictive practices and other prohibited practices.

To prevent the distributor's general terms and conditions of purchase from being the starting point of the negotiation, the general terms of sale become the “sole” basis of the commercial negotiation. To ensure compliance with this obligation, Article L. 441-7 [now Article L. 441-3] of the Commercial Code provides that the “single commercial agreement must "refer to the price list previously communicated by the supplier or at least indicate how the price list in the version which served as a basis for the negotiation can be consulted”.

The single commercial agreement must, on penalty of an administrative fine, contain certain information contributing to the determination of the price agreed between supplier and distributor. New promotional instruments or NIPs ("nouveaux instruments promotionnels") can, in the course of the performance of the single commercial agreement, be subject to separate mandate agreements which must contain certain details. The timetabling of the negotiation of the single commercial agreement is put on a statutory footing, although there is no specific sanction in the event of the non-communication thereof: the general terms and conditions of sale must now be communicated not later than three months before 1 March or, for products or services subject to a particular marketing cycle, two months before the start of the marketing period. The law provides that the agreed price must apply by 1 March. For certain products whose cost is highly dependent on price fluctuations of agricultural raw materials and foodstuffs, the single commercial agreement must contain a price re-negotiation clause which must allow those fluctuations - “whether upward or downward” - to be taken into account.

During the application of the agreement, the distributor has a duty of courtesy to reply “in detail” to any specific written request from the supplier related to the performance of the agreement. 

Article L. 441-9 [now L. 441-5] of the Commercial Code provides that a written agreement must be established “for any purchase of manufactured products, made at the request of the buyer to be integrated into its own production”. The provision governs the relations of buyers with their subcontractors.

The Hamon Law provides clarification on payment deadlines: it validates the practice of periodic invoices and strictly oversees the procedures for acceptance or verification that allow to push the starting point of the period of payment. The non-compliance with deadlines is now sanctioned by an administrative fine.

Two new restrictive practices are introduced to Article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code. Persons are now held liable for obtaining or attempting to obtain, in the course of the performance of the contract, an advantage “aimed at increasing or abusively maintaining its margins or its profitability” and for “placing, paying or invoicing an order for products or services at a price different from the agreed price”.

The extension of the basic investigation powers of the DGCCRF (General Directorate for Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Repression of Fraud) and the strengthening of its power of sanction constitute the main innovations of this law. It is endowed with the power to issue injunctions and administrative fines of between EUR 3,000 to EUR 75,000 for natural persons and  EUR 15,000 to EUR 375,000 for legal entities. Those amounts can be doubled in the case of recidivism for certain offenses. These new powers are exercised under the control of the administrative court.

Law No 2014-344 of 17 March 2014 on consumer protection.

Hamon Law.

The Macron Law (law for economic growth and activity and equality of economic opportunities) of 6 August 2015  has made minor changes partially reforming the rules governing commercial negotiations. Thus, Article L. 441-6 [now Article L. 441-10, I] of the Commercial Code caps the payment deadlines at 60 days, makes the 45 day end-of-month rule a mere derogation of that principle and entrenches the exception for products having a particularly marked seasonal nature as provided for under the Law of 22 March 2012. The Macron Law makes the relations between manufacturers and wholesalers subject to marginally less stringent formalities in respect of the single commercial agreement. It also extends the rules on price re-negotiation clauses to distributor own-brand goods (Art. L. 441-8). An additional method of determining the civil fine sanctioning anticompetitive practices is introduced by the law, which can, in proportion to the benefits derived from the breach, be as much as 5% of the pre-tax turnover achieved by the infringing undertaking (former Art. L. 442-6). 

Law No 2015-990 of 6 August 2015, OJ of 7 August 2015, 13537.

Macron Law.

The Law on Transparency, Anti-corruption and the Modernization of the Economy (Sapin II Law) of 9 December 2016  brings a new dynamic to the rules on commercial negotiations, the most important of which concern price  transparency. In order to alleviate the burden on businesses, single commercial agreements and wholesaler contracts required by law can now be multi- annual. Where this is the case, the parties must set out the terms under which prices will be revised, if they wish by reference to public indexes on condition that they have a direct relation to the products concerned by the agreement.

The Sapin II Law further regulates the negotiations in the agricultural sector by formalizing the mechanisms for setting price and capping “promotional instruments”. Payment periods are subject to a new derogation in respect of deadlines for businesses exporting outside the EU to prevent them being at a disadvantage compared to their non-French competitors. In those cases periods can be capped at 90 days from the date of issue of the invoice. The Law at the same time reinforces sanctions for violations of the rules applicable to payment terms; fines for legal persons have been raised significantly, the ceiling for multiple offenses has been removed and decisions will now systematically be published.

The Sapin II Law also added to the range of restrictive practices set out in former Article L. 442-6, I (now Art. L. 442-1, I) of the Commercial Code: two new examples of benefits not corresponding to any commercial service actually rendered or disproportionate to value of the service rendered are added, as well as a prohibition of the imposition of a price revision clause in the context of multi-annual single commercial agreements or of the price re-negotiation clause under Article L. 441-8, by reference to one or more public indexes having no direct relation to the products or services covered by the agreement; and the subjecting or attempting to subject a commercial partner to late delivery penalties in the event of force majeure. Finally, the ceiling of the civil fine has been increased to EUR 5 million. 

Law 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016, OJ No 287 of 10 December 2016.

Sapin II Law.

Law No 2018-938 of 30 October 2018, known as the EGalim Law  has five main components:

- a reinforced contractual framework in agricultural matters;

- the raising of the resale below cost threshold and the regulation of promotions for food products;

- reinforced monitoring of central referencing or purchasing agreements by the Competition Authority;

- greater emphasis on combating abusively low prices; 

- and the general recast of Title IV, Book IV of the Commercial Code.

The organization of the contractual framework in agricultural matters, the raising of the resale below cost threshold and the regulation of promotional operations are aimed at establishing a new power balance in the food supply chain to the benefit of farmers.

1) Contractualization in agricultural matters

The EGalim Law creates a general rule of mandatory contractualization in the agricultural sector. New Article L. 631-24, I of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code provides that the framework of the contractualization applies to “any contract for the sale of agricultural products supplied on the territory of France” concluded in writing, subject to certain exceptions. The law aims to reverse the contractual process: a written sales contract no longer originates from a contractual proposal from the buyer but must first come from a proposal from the agricultural producer (Art. L. 631-24, II). The content of contracts is strictly regulated and a list of mandatory clauses is provided, such as price and pricing methods that must take into account a number of cost and price indicators and criteria (Art. L. 631-24, III).

2) Raising of resale below cost threshold and the regulation of promotional operations

The EGalim Law authorized the government to take two series of measures by way of ordinance before 1 March 2019 . The resale below cost (RBC) threshold has been raised by 10% for food and pet food products . Promotional operations financed by the distributor or the supplier for the sale to consumers of foods and products intended for the feeding of farm animals are framed in terms of value and volume, and administrative penalties have been adopted to ensure the effectiveness of those provisions . These measures have been adopted for a limited two-year period in order to test the results and effectiveness thereof. Use of the term “free” ("gratuit")as a marketing and promotional tool is also prohibited in the context of the sale of food products .

3) Monitoring of distributors' central referencing or purchasing agreements 

The EGalim Law allows the Competition Authority to take precautionary measures of its own motion in respect of any agreement entered into by a central listing or purchasing agency if the latter is likely to significantly impede competition to a sufficient degree of seriousness (Art. L. 462-10 Commercial Code). 

The EGalim Law authorized the government to legislate by way of ordinance to amend the provisions of Article L. 442-9 (now Art. L. 442-7) and to extend the prohibition on selling at abusively low prices to agricultural and food products . Ordinance No 2019-358, which came into force on 24 April 2019, provides, in Article 1, for the removal of the conditions relating to the existence of an economic crisis and sharp rise in raw materials and widens the scope to all agricultural products and foodstuffs, with, pursuant to Article 2, a deferred entry into force of four months for contracts in progress at the date of publication of the ordinance.

Law No 2018-938 of 30 October 2018 for balance in trade relations in the agricultural and food sector and healthy and sustainable food which is accessible to all, OJ 1 November 2018.

Ordinance 2018-1128 of 12 December 2018, on the raising of the threshold for resale at a loss and the framing of promotions for foodstuffs and certain food products, OJ 13 December 2018.

Ordinance No 2019-358 of 24 April 2019, on liability actions for abusively low prices, OJ 25 April 2019.

EGalim Law.

The most important overall reform of the French economy resulting from the EGalim Law lies in the provisions of Article 17 authorizing the government to take any measure within its scope by way of ordinance to modify the law on commercial negotiations. Thereafter, the DGCCRF issued and submitted for consultation two draft ordinances amending the rules for the formalization of the commercial relationship and the law of restrictive and abusive practices under Title IV of Book IV of the Commercial Code in line with Article 17 of the EGalim Law. On 24 April 2019, the French government adopted Ordinance No 2019-359 recasting Title IV of Book IV of the Commercial Code relating to transparency, restrictive practices and other prohibited practices. Its aim is to clarify the provisions applicable to trade negotiations, in particular by eliminating those having become redundant, and to organize Title IV into a chronological and thematic structure reflecting business relationships .

Article L. 441-6 (now L. 441-1) has been revised, but the conditions of sale are still not part of the content of the General Terms and Conditions. There are henceforth no longer three but two types of single commercial agreement: a relatively flexible single ordinary law agreement which is also applicable to wholesalers, and a special agreement covering consumer goods. The ordinance does not bring any significant changes to the rules on billing and payment terms.

Instead of the twenty plus specific types of conduct covered in parts I and II of former Article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code, the government has refocused the rules around two umbrella practices: obtaining an advantage without consideration or which is manifestly disproportionate (new Art. L. 442-1, I, 1°) and imposing a significant imbalance (new Art. L. 442-1, I, 2°), and more specific practices: sudden termination of the established commercial relationship (new Art. L. 442-1, II) and third-party complicity in the breach of contractual obligations (Art. L. 442-2).

In the context of both commercial negotiations and restrictive and abusive practices, the reform has brought flexibility and a welcome simplification of the French commercial negotiation rules, although further improvements could be useful.

1) Greater flexibility in commercial negotiations

The ordinance has relaxed the obligation to disclose the general terms and conditions of sale (GTC), which is now limited to cases where such terms have actually been established. This major change was certainly judicious with the activity of many undertakings being incompatible with pre-established general conditions. Such undertakings will no longer be required to prove in court, when asked to disclose them, that their activity does not lend itself to the establishment of GTC. The provision also reduces the mandatory content of the GTC by no longer requiring the conditions of sale to be included.

The rules applicable to the general single commercial agreement now refered to as the “written agreement” and the timetable for the negotiation are also more flexible than the previous framework, as opposed to the stricter regime of the written commercial agreement concerning suppliers of mass-market consumer goods.

The ordinance faithfully implements Article 17, I, 2° of the EGalim Law in respect of the clarification of the invoicing rules by harmonizing the provisions of the Commercial Code with those of the French Tax Code.

The provisions relating to payment deadlines are set out in a more logical and comprehensible manner.

2) Possible improvements in the framework of commercial negotiations

The ordinance retains the obligation to disclose in the GTC the method of calculation of the price of services or a detailed estimate. This does seem paradoxical compared to the option not to disclose them where none have been established precisely because the price of the service cannot be pre-determined with any precision.

The formal requirements for single commercial agreements are still excessive even though they are somewhat more relaxed for the general written commercial agreement.

Although the law on invoicing has been brought into line in respect of the issue date under tax law, the addition of two further elements potentially giving rise to large fines does not seem appropriate given that the rules on invoicing are already overly formalistic. 

Finally, the substitution of administrative fines in place of civil, commercial or criminal sanctions is not justified. The fact that the same body investigates, prosecutes and sanctions is difficult to accept: it would be more appropriate for litigation relating to non-compliance with the transparency rules by undertakings to be referred by the government to the Commercial Court which is clearly experienced in handling abusive practices cases prosecuted by the DGCCRF.

3) A welcome simplification of the law on restrictive and abusive practices

The radical simplification of former Article L. 442-6 which listed thirteen practices and five prohibited clauses, by reclassifying them under three commercial practices, one specific practice and two prohibited clauses, is to be welcomed. Likewise, the restructuring of the rules pertaining to sudden termination of established commercial relationships, the negative effects of which have frequently come under fire, and the maintenance of the regime covering off-network resales, are acceptable. From a procedural point of view, the broadening of victims' options is also positive.

4) Further simplification is needed for restrictive and abusive practices

The ordinance should have provided for transitional provisions, in particular in terms of the starting point of the application of the 18-month notice period aimed at avoiding the liability of the terminating party for sudden termination of established commercial relationships. Many key issues also remain unresolved. The framework of the law of the termination of established commercial relationships proves to be too minimalist: it would have been more efficient to provide for a ceiling of 12 or 18 months rather than an 18 month notice period which covers the terminating party against liability for insufficient notice, which, where less than 18 months' notice is granted, risks generating demands for even longer notice and creating significant legal uncertainty. Likewise, all the perverse effects of the law on terminations of established commercial relationships have not been addressed. Two major defects remain; undertakings can still benefit from a long notice period and therefore a large termination indemnity in lieu of notice even if they have been able to reorient the business immediately, which is both unfair and inefficient. It is imperative that the notice period takes into account the reconversion of the terminated party and that, where no actual loss is incurred due to that reconversion, no compensation be awarded. In addition, the new law remains applicable to contracts - including distribution agreements - performed outside the French territory. Why does the French law of restrictive practices apply extraterritorially and protect foreign contractors in their relations with French undertakings? The Belgian exclusive dealership example should have been followed as it ensures the protection of distributors with contracts performed in Belgium but is not applicable when the agreement is performed outside Belgium.

Other fundamental weaknesses in the French law on abusive practices are still present, such as the intrinsic fragility of the basis of the action by the Minister of the Economy, the fact that the case law is based on the protection of the structure of the market, which can make it incompatible with European competition law, the maintenance of the per se criminalization of resale price maintenance (Art. L. 442-6) or the regulation of prices authorized by the courts on significant imbalance which appears to be incompatible with a free market economy. In agricultural matters, the number of price indicators given is certainly excessively formalistic - and largely inapplicable in practice - even though the perverse effects cannot yet be known.

See Report to the President of the Republic concerning Ordinance No 2019-359 of 24 April 2019 recasting Title IV of Book IV of the Commercial Code relating to transparency, restrictive practices and other prohibited practices, OJ 25 April 2095.

Created by the NRE Law, the role of the Commission is to monitor commercial dealings, invoicing and contracts between producers, suppliers and resellers and act as an observatory on same, and to formulate recommendations and respond to questions on commercial or advertising documents and practices. The Commission is made up of a legislative representative, a senator, members of the judiciary, of the agricultural, manufacturing, supply and resale sectors, and three governmental representatives.

Matters may be referred to the Commission by the Minister of the Economy or any other Minister in charge of the sector concerned, the Competition Authority president, any legal entity, or any manufacturers, suppliers or resellers who consider themselves victims of an unfair commercial practice or any court requiring a legal opinion on practices brought before it under Articles L. 442-1 et seq. of the Commercial Code.

The Commission may also decide to act on its own initiative. Further, anonymous applications or documentation may be sent to the Commission, which will hear those persons necessary or useful to the success of its investigation. Moreover, the President of the Commission may also order an investigation; the investigation report safeguards the anonymity of the parties concerned and is sent to the President. The Commission will then issue an opinion or make a recommendation. The opinion will notably concern the legality of the document or practice brought to the attention of the Commission. The assessment takes into account all applicable rules and not only those on competition. The recommendation touches on areas coming within its jurisdiction, and especially the development of good practices.

Each year the Commission draws up a report on its activities, which is made public.

The Commission should be seen as a compromise between a quasi-judicial body, like the Competition Authority, and a simple observatory. Although its opinions and recommendations are not legally binding, they surely have an influence on court decisions and facilitate negotiated settlements in disputes between manufacturers, suppliers or resellers.

Commission for the Review of Commercial Practices

The Dutreil Law revived the old institution of the settlement ("transaction"). If criminal proceedings have not yet been set in motion, the authority in charge of competition and consumer affairs (DGCCRF) may, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, decide to settle. Pursuant to the terms of Article L. 490-5 of the Commercial Code, settlement concerns the offenses referred to in Title IV of Book IV of the Commercial Code for which no custodial sentence is incurred (e.g. infringements to the rules on resale below cost or resale price maintenance). The Public Prosecutor's consent has the effect of interrupting the limitation period for criminal proceedings. Prosecution is barred where the offender complies with the obligations laid down in the settlement within the required time. The procedure is set out in Articles L. 490-5, R. 490-9 and R. 490-10. The settlement method is not entirely satisfactory as it can be conducive to arbitrary decision-making and lead to a breach of the principle of equality before the law.

Since the Dutreil Law, Article L. 490-6 of the Commercial Code has authorized recourse to the settlement procedure provided by Article 41-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("composition pénale") for corporate bodies who admit to having committed one or more violations and for which the penalty does not involve a prison sentence. The procedure can be described as a type of transaction set up by the Public Prosecutor's office and consists of: a measure proposed by the Public Prosecutor, acceptance by the offending party within ten days, reparation of the harm to the victim within six months, application to the court for a ruling to validate the decision, the hearing, an order for performance and performance. In cases of non-performance, the matter is sent back for trial under the normal criminal procedure. As the procedure is complex, it is possible to have recourse to the simplified procedure provided by Article 495 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("ordonnance pénale"). This is a unilateral, non-adversarial procedure by which a criminal order - which may be opposed within 45 days - is issued without a hearing.

Settlements, criminal law settlements and injunctions

The Minister of the Economy has been granted significant powers with regard to economic infringements. Under Article L. 490-8, the Minister has the right to submit arguments to civil or criminal courts and to present them orally at the hearing. The Minister may also present the minutes and hearing transcripts linked to the matter at trial. In relation to price transparency and restrictive practices, only Article L. 442-4 specifically lists the Minister as one of the persons able to take a legal action. However, the Minister can also act under Article L. 490-8, whatever the restrictive practice or transparency rule concerned . As these prerogatives fall within the general duty to protect an economic order based on competitive freedom, the Minister cannot be required to follow all of the usual procedural rules applicable to private parties . He may therefore dispense with the assistance of an advocate when acting as principal (Article R. 442-1) .

The question of which court has jurisdiction for ministerial actions arises where the act in question involves both commercial and non-commercial players. In principle, the Minister can choose between civil or commercial jurisdictions. However, when the Minister is acting on behalf of the victim of the restrictive practice, the decision on jurisdiction is dependent on the status of the economic operators in question . If the victim is a non-commercial party, the Minister may choose between a civil or commercial court. However, if the victim is a commercial party, the action must go before a commercial court. Thus, any action taken on producer/distributor relations will go to the Commercial Court ("Tribunal de commerce").

Prior to the NRE Law, the Minister had the power to request a cease-and desist order but not contract voidance. As the ministerial power to file suit before civil or commercial courts to guarantee economic order is an exception in ordinary law, the power has been very strictly interpreted. Therefore, the Minister could not in any action stand in for the victims of a discriminatory practice and seek compensation on their behalf . In order to reinforce the prohibition on restrictive agreements, the NRE law empowered the Minister of the Economy to go to court to request the cessation of certain activities or the voidance of illicit clauses. The Minister can now also take actions on behalf of an actual victim, asking the courts to order restitution of undue payments or hand down civil fines the amount of which may not exceed the highest of the following three amounts: EUR 5 million (since the Sapin II Law), triple the amount of unduly collected or obtained payments (since the LME Law) or (since the Macron Law) 5% of the turnover of the offending company (Article L. 442-4, I). These powers clearly indicate a public policy that is prescriptive rather than protective. The Court of Cassation has stated that the Minister's actions are autonomous acts and do not require the consent of the victims nor their presence at trial . Subsequently the Constitutional Council nevertheless stated that for contract voidance, the Minister must inform the suppliers of his intention of taking such action . Article L. 442-4 in its wording stemming from the Ordinance of 24 April 2019 enshrines this solution providing that “the victims of those practices shall be informed, by any means, of the introduction of the legal action”.

T. com. Versailles, 7 March 1997, LawLex200200000205JBJ. 

CA Nîmes, 13 July 2000, LawLex200200000241JBJ; see however, CA Nancy, 14 December 1998, LawLex200200000422JBJ, which declared the conclusions of the Minister submitted after the closing of the action to be inadmissible; Colmar, 1st July 1999, LawLex200200000223JBJ. 

Although the case law had for a long time asserted the opposite to be the case. TGI Paris, 19 May 1993, LawLex200200000419JBJ; Cass. com., 17 July 2001, LawLex200200000421JBJ. 

Cass. com., 27 June 1995, LawLex200200000418JBJ. 

Cass. com., 5 December 2000, LawLex200200000165JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 9 June 1998, LawLex200200000210JBJ; CA Versailles, 21 December 2000, LawLex200200000101JBJ. 

Cass.com., 8 July 2008, LawLex200800001091JBJ.

Cons. Constit. decision No 2011-126 QPC of 13 May 2011, LawLex201100000905JBJ.

Special ministerial powers

By virtue of the Hamon Law on consumer protection of 17 March 2014, Book IV of the Commercial Code now contains a new Title VII on administrative injunctions and sanctions. 

Article L. 470-1 of the Commercial Code empowers the DGCCRF to issue injunctions: agents authorized within the meaning of Article L. 450-1, II can now, “following adversarial proceedings, enjoin any trader, to comply, within a reasonable time period, with its obligations, to cease any wrongdoing or remove any unlawful clause”. 

The “DDADUE” law  of 3 December 2020 has supplemented Article L. 470-1 with the addition of section III to “strengthen the current framework of the law on practices which are restrictive of competition” by “allowing a faster course of action than commercial litigation” conducted by the DGCCRF on behalf of the Ministry of the Economy. In substance, this reinforcement translates into the introduction of a new system of periodic penalty payments accompanying the DGCCRF's injunctions, which gives the DGCCRF a significant power of sanction that is out of all proportion compared to the previous situation. Each injunction served in respect of a breach punishable by a civil fine may henceforth be accompanied by a daily penalty payment of up to 0.1% of the most recent worldwide turnover excluding tax. In the event of total or partial default or late compliance, the DGCCRF may proceed with the liquidation of the penalty payment, and may decide to publish the injunction decision on its website as well as on any other medium authorized to receive legal notices, at the expense of the sanctioned undertaking . The total amount requested for the settlement of the penalty payment may reach 1% of the worldwide turnover (excluding tax) of the infringing undertaking. The periodic penalty payment covers breaches of the provisions of Title IV of Book IV of the Commercial Code punishable by a civil fine, i.e. obtaining an advantage without consideration (Art. L. 442-1, I, 1°),  significant imbalance (Article L. 442-1, I, 2°), disproportionate penalties (Art. L. 442-1, I, 3° introduced by the ASAP law of 7 December 2020), sudden termination of an established commercial relationship (Art. L. 442-1, II), participation in the breach of a contractual prohibition of resale outside the network (Art. L. 442-2), the use of clauses allowing the retroactive benefit of discounts and commercial cooperation agreements (Art. L. 442-3(a)) or most favored nation (MFN) clauses, which automatically grant the most favorable terms granted to competitors by the co-contracting party (Art. L. 442-3, (b)), the imposition of abusively low sale prices in agri-food matters (Art. L. 442-7), the practice of reverse auctions (Art. L. 442-8) and breaches of Regulation No 2019/1150 known as the “P2B Regulation” applicable to online intermediation services (Art. L. 442-1, III).

Despite a very high risk of sanctions with potentially major consequences for companies, the procedure leading to such injunction measures with penalty payments offers only very weak guarantees for businesses. Structurally, unlike independent administrative authorities such as the Competition Authority or the financial markets watchdog (Autorité des marchés financiers), there is no formal watertight separation within the DGCCRF between the bodies conducting the proceedings and those adopting the decisions. 

On the other hand, undertakings only have a period of sixty days at the stage of the settlement of the penalty payment to submit their observations to the Administration. Afterwards, the fined undertaking will of course be able to file an appeal to obtain a full remedy and apply for an interim stay of proceedings, but not in the ordinary (judicial) courts - only in the administrative courts. Whereas the Administration previously had to refer the matter to the judicial court and satisfy it of the existence and gravity of a restrictive practice in order to obtain a substantial civil fine and dissuasive measures to stop the offending behavior, it can now, if it so wishes, dispense de facto with the exercise of judicial power to achieve its ends, since an injunction to cease a practice accompanied by a penalty payment followed by the enforcement of this penalty payment makes it possible to obtain both the cessation of the practice and the sanctioning of the latter.  With this law, we are clearly witnessing a step backwards in the principle of the separation of powers, with the Administration centralizing in its hands prerogatives that clearly fall within the competence of the ordinary courts.

Article L. 470-1, II also confers on “the administrative authority for competition and consumer affairs” the power to impose “administrative fines sanctioning the breaches referred to in Title IV” and sanctioning the failure to comply with injunctions. Where the trader does not comply with an injunction “for an infringement or a breach subject to an administrative fine” within the required time, the administration may impose an administrative fine of up to EUR 3,000 for natural persons and EUR 15,000 for legal entities.

The law thus appears to limit the imposition of an administrative fine for non-compliance with an injunction to the case where the injunction relates to an offense that may itself be subject to an administrative fine.

An administrative fine not exceeding EUR 15,000 for natural persons and EUR 75,000 for legal entities is imposed for: 

- violation of the obligation to disclose the general conditions of sale provided for in Article L. 441-1 of the Commercial Code;

- violation of the prohibition on benefiting from price reductions, rebates, discounts for the purchase of fresh fruit and vegetables under Article L. 443-2 of the Commercial Code;

- violation of the obligation to present an order form or a contract for fresh fruit and vegetables intended for sale or resale to a trader established in France pursuant to Article L. 443-3 of the Commercial Code.

An administrative fine not exceeding EUR 75,000 for natural persons and EUR 375,000 for legal entities is imposed for:

- failure to conclude a written commercial agreement compliant with the requirements of Articles L. 441-3 et seq. of the Commercial Code;

- failure to comply with the invoicing rules pursuant to Article L. 441-9 of the Commercial Code; 

- failure to conclude a re-negotiation clause in compliance with Article L. 441-8 of the Commercial Code, or to respect its terms, or undermining production or business secrecy during negotiations; 

Since the enactment of the Sapin II Law, natural persons may incur an administrative fine not exceeding EUR 75 000 and legal persons EUR 2 million  for:

- violation of the provisions relating to time limits and terms and conditions for the calculation of the time limits laid down in Article L. 441-10 of the Commercial Code, as well as all clauses or practices that have the effect of unreasonably delaying the starting points of payment periods ;

- failure to comply with the terms of payment provided for in Articles L. 441-10, L. 441-11, L. 441-12 and L. 441-13;

- failure to state, in the payment conditions set out in part I of Article L. 441-1, the stipulations of part II of Article L. 441-10;

- the setting of a rate or of conditions triggering late payment penalties in a manner not in accordance with the requirements of part II of Article L. 441-10; 

- failure to respect the methods of calculation of the terms of payment agreed between the parties pursuant to part I of Article L. 441-10.

The law specified that in case of cumulation with a criminal fine or between several administrative fines, the total amount of the sanctions could not exceed the highest legal maximum. In order to reinforce the dissuasive character of the administrative fine, the Sapin II Law  removed the legal cap, so that, from now on, there will be as many fines as there are individual infringements found. The action of the Administration is time-barred after three years from the day on which the infringement was committed, if, within this period, no action has been taken to investigate, establish or sanction the infringement.

The maximum amount incurred is doubled in the event of a repeat of the breach within a period of two years from the date on which the first penalty decision became final. Does this mean that the authorities will keep an “administrative record” of convictions? The decree provided for by Article L. 470-2 of the Commercial Code has not addressed this question .

According to Article L. 470-2, the breaches sanctioned must be set out in a statement ("procès-verbal") and accused parties must be informed that proceedings have been instituted against them and that they have the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choosing. From the date of receipt of that information, they have sixty days in which to present their written or oral observations but must also be given the opportunity to take cognizance of evidence in the case file. After the sixty-day period, the authorities may, by reasoned decision, impose a fine and that decision can be made public. 

Under Article R. 470-1, as amended by Decree 2022-1701 of 29 December 2022 ,  the judgment handed down by the administrative authority may be published in the press, electronically or by means of bill posting. These three methods of publication may be ordered simultaneously. The publication or posting may take the form of a press release informing the public of the reasons for the measures and their implementation, accompanied by a message to raise public awareness of the practices identified. The injunction or settlement orders may also be published in the Official Journal or in one or more other press publications, or by one or more electronic public communication services. These measures, which may be accompanied by the disclosure of the identity of undertakings responsible for unlawful practices ("name and shame"), which is already common in the context of payment deadlines are presented as being likely to strengthen the preventive and informational action of the DGCCRF .

Publication of the decision is now mandatory, regardless of the offense sanctioned, as of the Ordinance of 24 April 2019 (Article L. 442-4, II). 

Both the decision issuing the injunction and the decision imposing the administrative fine could only be challenged before the Minister of the Economy by the person who was the subject of the injunction, this remedy being exclusive of any other hierarchical recourse (Commercial Code, Art. R. 470-1 and R. 470-2, II). Since the DDADUE Law, the decision to issue an injunction and the decision to enforce the daily penalty payment are subject to appeal by the court of full jurisdiction, and the court hearing the application for interim relief may, if necessary, order them to be stayed.

Law No 2020-1508 of 3 December 2020 containing various provisions for adapting to European Union law (known as the DDADUE law) in economic and financial matters.

For a first application, see the DGCCRF's press release of 7 December 2022, imposing a fine of EUR 3.33 million on a GAFAM for delaying the compliance of its contractual terms and conditions after the court had ruled against them

Regarding payment periods, Article 68 of Law 2014-626 of 18 June 2014 clarified the system of sanctions applicable in the case of non-compliance with the provisions of Article L. 441-6. The Hamon Law had limited the scope of application of the administrative fine to the non-compliance with the payment deadlines and the methods for the calculation of payment periods agreed by the parties. The other offenses remained punishable by a criminal sanction. Law 2014-626 extended the possibility of incurring an administrative sanction to all the infringements under former Article L. 441-6.

Law No 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 on transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life.

Decree No 2014-1109 of 30 September 2014 adapting the rules on sanctions.

Decree No 2022-1701 of 29 December 2022 defining the procedures for publicizing measures taken in application of Book IV of the Commercial Code and Book V of the Consumer Code, OJ 30 December 2022.  The provision concerns injunctions issued by the DGCCRF in relation to restrictive practices as well as anticompetitive (new wording of Art. R. 464-9-1 Consumer Code) or consumer practices (new wording of Art. R. 521-2 Consumer Code).

See DGCCRF press release of 30 December 2022.

Power to issue injunctions and administrative fines

In light of the relative failure of the EGalim law, the legislature, determined to strengthen the protection of farmers' remuneration, has put the question back on the table. Adopted in just a few months, the EGalim 2 Law   is a revision of the provisions of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code and the Commercial Code relating to commercial negotiation within the agrifood chain.

Upstream of the chain, the law reinforces the contractual relationship between producers and first buyers of agricultural products. In order to guarantee greater stability for farmers, it extends the obligation to draw up a written contract, which Article L. 631-24 of the Rural Code reserved, for certain sectors, to “any contract for the sale of agricultural products supplied on the French territory” . From now on, such contracts must be concluded for a period “which can be no less than three years”, but which can be “increased to five years by extension of an inter-professional agreement [...] or, failing that, by decree in the Council of State”. With the EGalim 2 law, the contract or framework agreement proposal, which does not necessarily have to come from the producer, becomes “the basis for negotiation between the parties”. This proposal must include criteria and procedures for revising or determining the price that take into account one or more indicators relating to the relevant production costs in agriculture and the fluctuations of those costs. The text leaves the parties free to define, in the contract or framework agreement, these criteria and procedures, as long as they include, in addition to the indicator(s) derived from the key elements of the proposal, one or more indicators relating to the prices of agricultural and food products recorded on the market(s) on which the purchaser operates and to the evolution of these prices, as well as one or more indicators relating to the quantities, composition, quality, origin and traceability of the products, or to compliance with a specification . On the other hand, the parties are prohibited from including terms that automatically renegotiate or modify the price in light of the competitive environment. Article 2 of the law also provides that in the price clause, the parties may agree on minimum and maximum limits between which the criteria and procedures for determining or revising the price, including one or more indicators relating to the relevant costs of production in agriculture, produce their effects . Finally, the law establishes a Committee for the Settlement of Agricultural Trade Disputes , tasked with hearing, prior to any recourse to the courts, disputes relating to the conclusion or performance of a contract or framework agreement mentioned in Article L. 631-24 that have not been resolved by the mediator for agricultural trade relations. The committee, which has the power to make decisions, issue injunctions and impose sanctions, may also take precautionary interim measures, if necessary .

Downstream, the EGalim 2 law reinforces the formal nature of commercial negotiations between food manufacturers and distributors. It specifies the content of the general terms and conditions of sale for food products and products intended for pet food   and requires, for those products, the drafting of a specific written agreement . The law also makes changes to Article L. 441-8 of the Commercial Code concerning the renegotiation clause and to Article L. 441-7 concerning private label products, and radically changes the prohibition on logistics penalties, regardless of the sector . Finally, for food products and products intended for pet food, the EGalim law reintroduces the prohibition on discriminatory practices, which the LME Law had repealed in 2008.

Law No 2021-1357 of 18 October 2021 for the protection of farmers' earnings, OJ 19 Oct. 2021. The  EGalim 2 Law was adopted on the proposal of Deputé ( member of parliament) Besson-Moreau.

In addition to the exceptions already provided for before the reform, the Law of 18 October 2021 introduces a new exemption to this obligation, excluding sales between producers and buyers who do not reach certain turnover thresholds to be determined by decree.

The inter-trade organizations draw up and publish reference indicators. Failing that, the agricultural technical institutes are responsible for producing and publishing them.

On an experimental basis for a period of four years, the use of this so-called "tunnel clause" was made mandatory in the beef industry by Decree No 2021-1415 of 29 October 2021. The absence of such a clause in contracts concluded in the sectors where its use has been made compulsory is punishable by an administrative fine of up to 2% of the pre-tax turnover of the last closed financial year or, in the case of producer organizations or associations of producer organizations marketing products without transfer of ownership, up to 2% of the aggregate turnover of all producers whose products they market.

Commercial Code, Art. L. 442-1, I, 3° and L. 441-17.

EGalim 2 Law

The new “EGalim 3" (or ‘Descrozaille Law’)  named after its parliamentary rapporteur, aims to promote a better balance in commercial relations between distributors and suppliers. Although the initial aim of the bill was to “secure French consumers' supplies of mass-market products” , its content was expanded during parliamentary discussions, with a view to strengthening the balance of commercial relations and improving the rules governing relations between suppliers and distributors, against a backdrop of inflation which all stakeholders have to contend with, and which is creating tensions in both commercial relations and negotiations. The “EGalim 3 Law” thus adopts a whole series of measures aimed at restoring the balance of power between distributors and suppliers within the framework of annual negotiations. It also extends the framework for promotions and the resale-below-cost threshold, imposes the competence of French law and the French courts with regard to products marketed in France, in order to combat the bypassing practices of the major central distributors, completes the framework for contractual penalties and discriminatory practices, and introduces a better technical structure for certain rules relating to commercial negotiation.

Law No 2023-221 of 30 March 2023 aimed at strengthening the balance in commercial relations between suppliers and distributors, OJ 31 March 2023.

Parliamentary Bill No 575 aimed at securing French consumers' supplies of mass-market goods.

French Competition Law

117. Ordinance No 2019-359 of 24 April 2019 recasting Title IV Book IV of the Commercial Code.

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

117. Ordinance No 2019-359 of 24 April 2019 recasting Title IV Book IV of the Commercial Code.

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise