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

Article L. 420-1(1) deals with agreements or practices that limit market access or free competition by other undertakings. Boycotts consist in eliminating a competitor by calling for collective retaliatory measures or by organizing a collective refusal to contract. The competition authorities consider this to be one of the most drastic forms of preventing free market access . Boycotts have as thei …

Conditions for prohibition

Article L. 420-1(1) deals with agreements or practices that limit market access or free competition by other undertakings. Boycotts consist in eliminating a competitor by calling for collective retaliatory measures or by organizing a collective refusal to contract. The competition authorities consider this to be one of the most drastic forms of preventing free market access . Boycotts have as their object and/or effect to prevent a specific competitor from penetrating or maintaining its position on a market. The establishment of a boycott does not require that the initiators be in competition with the eliminated undertakings .

They may be direct, where decided on by the participants themselves , or indirect, when pressure is exerted over third parties to inhibit them from contracting with the boycotted undertaking . 

The call for a boycott does not have to be followed by actual retaliatory measures . When assessing the seriousness of the harm to competition, the competition authorities consider that the boycott constitutes an anticompetitive practice by its very object, regardless of the limited nature of its effect on the market . However, only deliberate action aimed at driving an operator out of the market can be penalized . Merely refusing access is not sufficient to establish a boycott in the absence of other evidence of the existence of an anticompetitive agreement . Under no circumstances can unlawful conduct by the boycotted competitors serve to justify such an anticompetitive practice .

Competition Council Report for 1980, 225. 

Competition Council decision No 98-D-25 of 17 March1998, LawLex200200002438JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 95-D-35 of 10 May 1995, LawLex200200002526JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 23 February 1996, LawLex200200003277JBJ. 

CA Paris, 18 March 2003, LawLex200300002017JBJ; Competition Council decision No 02-D-36 of 14 June 2002, LawLex200200002181JBJ; No 02-D-14 of 28 February 2002, LawLex200200002229JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 24 June 2003, LawLex200300002972JBJ; Competition Council decision No 00-D-01 of 22 February 2000, LawLex200200002545JBJ; No 93-D-46 of 3 November 1993, LawLex200200002360JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 93-D-46 of 3 November 1993, LawLex200200002360JBJ.

CA Paris, 3 December 1998, LawLex200200002732JBJ; Competition Council decision No 99-D-01 of 5 January 1999, LawLex200200002502JBJ; CA Paris, 22 January 2002, LawLex200200002258JBJ. In the absence of an anticompetitive object and appreciable effect, a sanction for the boycott is ruled out: Competition Council decision No 99-D-68 of 9 November 1999, LawLex200200003288JBJ, upheld in CA Paris, 27 June 2000, LawLex200200002849JBJ.

Cass. com., 22 October 2002, LawLex200200006343JBJ; Competition Council decision No 98-D-31 of 13 May 1998, LawLex200200002890JBJ, which excludes the classification as a boycott of the rejection of a commercial stand at a sporting event if it is not discriminatory; CA Paris, 3 December 1998, LawLex200200002732JBJ, specifying that a boycott may be prohibited on the basis of its object alone, even if it has only a limited impact on the market; CA Paris 27 June 2000, LawLex200200002849JBJ:  in the absence of an intent to squeeze out a competitor, the instructions of a professional body do not have an anticompetitive object; 9 April 2002, LawLex200200002232JBJ: the mere intention to limit the competitor's market share is not sufficient to characterize the agreement; Competition Council decision No 03-D-06 of 29 January 2003, LawLex200300001011JBJ, excluding, in the absence of intent to eliminate, the classification as a boycott of an individual invitation from a member of a franchisee brand to other members to proceed with the massive purchase of a magazine sold in their press outlet in order to defend the brand image of the group; No 04-D-35 of 23 July 2004, LawLex200400001936JBJ: the appropriation by wine merchants of a reserve withdrawn from the market for qualitative aging purposes is not sufficient to demonstrate a common desire to deplete the market; Competition Authority decision No 20-D-15 of 27 October 2020, LawLex202000002894JBJ, which specifies that the allegation of boycott must be dismissed when the proof of the existence of an understanding is not provided and that by contacting its own customers to warn them that a travel agency could no longer issue tickets, an airline did not exceed what is authorized in the context of a contractual relationship with a major client; No 20-D-17 of 12 November 2020, LawLex202000003089JBJ, for a complaints campaign conducted by a professional federation and professional associations deliberately aimed at forcing their members to leave a healthcare network of which they were members.

For a refusal of access to scanners or MRIs to a private medical practitioner by certain medical centers, Competition Authority decision No 13-D-13 of 30 May 2013, LawLex201300001000JBJ.

Cass. com., 18 February 2004, LawLex200400000432JBJ, sanctioning the deliberate initiation of boycotts to counteract the illegal practices of competitors.

We may include under boycotts instructions from labor unions or professional organizations that incite their members not to contract with a designated undertaking . In this situation the union exceeds its role as protector of collective interests . Thus, preventing certain operators from taking part in professional fairs or conventions may be classified as a boycott where such an exclusion aims at or has the effect of limiting their competitive ability .

Exclusion may also come from delisting. This practice only contravenes Article L. 420-1 if it is comparable to a boycott of the supplier's products . Similarly, a purchasing pool is only objectionable if it is aimed at organizing a boycott .

Boycotts may be limited to threats , pressure , or warnings ; boycott instructions do not necessarily need to be implemented in order to be penalized . However, only deliberate action aimed at evicting an operator from the market is punishable . When evaluating the harm done to competition, authorities consider boycotts to have an anticompetitive object, regardless of whether they have an important or a minor effect on the market . The unlawful conduct of competitors who are targeted by a boycott cannot be cited in its defense .

Competition Council decision No 91-D-56 of 10 December 1991, LawLex200200003323JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 10 July 1992, LawLex200200002752JBJ; No 95-D-59 of 19 September 1995, LawLex200200003334JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 4 July 1996, LawLex200200002734JBJ; No 96-D-15 of 12 March 1996, LawLex200200002925JBJ; No 96-D-18 of 26 March 1996, LawLex200200002926JBJ; No 97-D-83 of 25 November 1997, LawLex200200002977JBJ; No 02-D-14 of 28 February 2002, LawLex200200002229JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 24 June 2003, LawLex200300002972JBJ. Competition Authority decision No 10-D-11 of 24 March 2010, LawLex201000000360JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 91-D-56 of 10 December 1991, LawLex200200003323JBJ. 

CA Paris, 3 December 1998, LawLex200200002732JBJ; Competition Council decision No 99-D-01 of 5 January 1999, LawLex200200002502JBJ; CA Paris, 22 January 2002, LawLex200200002258JBJ. If there is no anticompetitive purpose or appreciable effect, boycotts may not be sanctioned: Competition Council decision No 99-D-68 of 9 November 1999, LawLex200200003288JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 27 June 2000, LawLex200200002849JBJ. 

Cass. com., 18 February 2004, LawLex200400000432JBJ, ruling against a boycott set up deliberately to counter unlawful practices by competitors.

Competition Council decision No 94-D-05 of 18 January 1994, LawLex200200002446JBJ; No 95-D-16 of 14 February 1995, LawLex200200002922JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 94-D-60 of 13 December 1994, LawLex200200003339JBJ. 

CA Paris, 13 December 1995, LawLex200200002662JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 93-D-46 of 3 November 1993, LawLex200200002360JBJ; No 96-D-42 of 25 June 1996, LawLex200200002444JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 02-D-36 of 14 June 2002, LawLex200200002181JBJ; No 02-D-14 of 28 February 2002, LawLex200200002229JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 24 June 2003, LawLex200300002972JBJ; CA Paris, 5 May 1998, LawLex200200002725JBJ; CA Paris, 25 March 1997, LawLex200200002642JBJ; CA Paris, 18 March 2003, LawLex200300002017JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 97-D-26 of 22 April 1997, LawLex200200003311JBJ; CA Paris, 10 February 1998, LawLex200200003114JBJ, validated by Cass. com., 16 May 2000, LawLex200200002861JBJ. Mere warnings without specific threats of exclusion are not anticompetitive, Competition Council decision No 98-D-73 of 25 November 1998, LawLex200200003333JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 29 June 1999, LawLex200200002735JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 93-D-46 of 3 November 1993, LawLex200200002360JBJ. 

Cass. com., 22 October 2002, LawLex200200006343JBJ, boycotts are not anticompetitive unless they have such an intent, e.g. eviction from the market. Also: Competition Council decision No 03-D-06 of 29 January 2003, LawLex200300001011JBJ; CA Paris, 3 December 1998, LawLex200200002732JBJ; No 98-D-31 of 13 May 1998, LawLex200200002890JBJ; CA Paris, 9 April 2002, LawLex200200002232JBJ: merely intending to limit a competitor's market share is not sufficient evidence for a cartel. 

French Competition Law

288. Conditions for prohibition

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

288. Conditions for prohibition

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

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