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

Only distinct economic entities able to operate autonomously on the market can be held liable for agreements . Membership of a grouping or a professional body does not take away a company's commercial independence. Thus decisions made by a body issuing quality labels establish the existence of an agreement between its members . Likewise, rules relating to the prohibition of restrictive agreements  …

Participants 

Only distinct economic entities able to operate autonomously on the market can be held liable for agreements . Membership of a grouping or a professional body does not take away a company's commercial independence. Thus decisions made by a body issuing quality labels establish the existence of an agreement between its members . Likewise, rules relating to the prohibition of restrictive agreements do not apply to the economic unit formed of a supplier and those distributors who are not free to determine their commercial strategy and do not assume substantial economic and financial risks .

Competition Council decision No 94-D-40 of 28 June 1994, LawLex200200003051JBJ: for a federation; No 99-D-41 of 22 June 1999, LawLex200200003084JBJ: for an interunion committee; CA Paris, 3 June 1993, LawLex200200002499JBJ: for a cooperative. 

Competition Council decision No 94-D-41 of 5 July 1994, LawLex200200002840JBJ. 

Competition Authority Decision No 09-D-23 of 30 June 2009, LawLex200900002619JBJ;  No 20-D-15 of 27 October 2020, LawLex202000002894JBJ, No. 20-D-15 of October 27, 2020, LawLex202000002894JBJ, which emphasizes that the assessment of the applicability of the law on anticompetitive agreements to agency contracts is based on the risks borne by the agent and its autonomy in determining its commercial strategy.

According to the competition authorities, intra-enterprise agreements escape the application of Article L. 420-1 if the subsidiary has no economic autonomy from the parent company . On the other hand, a joint undertaking which has its own independent commercial policy and which is owned equally by two parent undertakings neither of which is in a position to control its activity, enjoys sufficient autonomy to be able to participate in a cartel with either of the two parents . The immunity of intra-enterprise agreements in France is subject to an important exception in the field of public tender offers. The courts have confirmed the Authority case-law in holding that Article L. 420-1 applies when members of a group of undertakings coordinate their tenders, while pretending to be competitors, thereby hoping to deceive the project owner . This is not the case in the situation where a number of undertakings unite within a single grouping of undertakings in order to submit a tender which necessitates particular technical skills, if the project owner is informed of the group from the beginning .

Competition Council decision No 92-D-68 of 15 December 1992, LawLex200200002886JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 15 September 1993, LawLex200200003066JBJ; CA Paris, 25 January 1994, LawLex200200002863JBJ; Competition Council decision No 97-D-53 of 1st July 1997, LawLex200200003190JBJ; No 03-D-01 of 14 January 2003, LawLex200300000598JBJ: the exclusive tie between subsidiaries and their parent company cannot be characterized as a restrictive agreement where the latter holds between a 40% and 100% stake, regularly gives the subsidiaries financial aid, defines their strategic goals, and is their main client. In one case, however, the Paris Court of Appeal appears to have added another condition to non-application of L. 420-1, stating that the concerted behavior of the groups' undertakings did not have an anticompetitive purpose: CA Paris, 27 September 1990, LawLex200200003074JBJ; see, however, CA Paris, 19 May 1999, LawLex200200002883JBJ.

Competition Authority decision nº 10-D-13 du 15 avril 2010, LawLex201000000457JBJ.

CA Paris, 26 April 1994, LawLex200200003039JBJ, on referral of Cass. com., 8 December 1992, overturning CA Paris, 19 September 1990, LawLex200200002812JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 00-D-53 of 18 January 2001, LawLex200200002707JBJ.

French Competition Law

274. Participants

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

274. Participants

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