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

Following the lead of EU law, French law has incorporated a de minimis rule. The 25 March 2004 Ordinance  inserted two new articles into the Commercial Code on this topic. Under Article L. 464-6(1) proceedings against restrictive agreements may be waived where these do not involve public procurement contracts, and the parties to the agreement or practices do not hold a cumulative market share on a …

Appreciable effect

Following the lead of EU law, French law has incorporated a de minimis rule. The 25 March 2004 Ordinance  inserted two new articles into the Commercial Code on this topic. Under Article L. 464-6(1) proceedings against restrictive agreements may be waived where these do not involve public procurement contracts, and the parties to the agreement or practices do not hold a cumulative market share on any of the affected markets that exceeds:

-10% if the cartel involves current or potential competitors (horizontal agreements);

-15% if it involves non-competitors (vertical agreements).

These thresholds are identical to those set by the European Commission in its 30 August 2014 Notice . However, the French statute does not include a 5% threshold in cases of cumulative foreclosure effects and therefore the Competition Authority has been able to allow a practice liable to foreclose 8% of a market .

Exceptions involving hardcore restrictions of competition are set out at Article L. 464-6(2). The de minimis rule does not apply to price-setting agreements, agreements limiting production or sales, or allocating markets  or customers, or imposing bans on passive sales. Selective distribution is the subject of two specific provisions. In order for the de minimis rule to apply, distributors acting as retailers mustn't be subjected to sales restrictions except those requiring an authorized place of sale, and cross-deliveries have to be allowed whether at the same or at a different level of the market.

The Ordinance of 13 November 2008 set an appreciability threshold for less serious cases (micro-practices) below which it granted the Minister of the Economy power to issue specific injunctions. Where the anticompetitive practice affects a market that is regional in dimension and is not likely to affect trade between Member States, the individual turnover of the undertakings does not exceed EUR 50 million and the cumulative turnover is less than EUR 200 million, the Minister of the Economy can order the undertakings in question to cease the infringing behavior and impose on them a settlement of an amount not exceeding EUR 75,000 or 5% of the last known turnover for France, whichever is smaller.

Ordinance No 2004-274 of 25 March 2004, JO of 27 March 2004, 5871.

Commission Notice 2014/C 291/01, 30 August 2014.

Competition Authority decision No 19-D-10 of 27 May 2019, LawLex201900000710JBJ.

Cover bids, see CA Paris, 20 December 2018, LawLex201800001990JBJ.

French Competition Law

264. Appreciable effect

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

264. Appreciable effect

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