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 power to issue a search and seizure authorization (warrant) lies with the “juge des libertés et de la détention” (freedoms and detentions judge) of the tribunal judiciaire. If the investigation requires that searches be conducted at a number of locations in different jurisdictions and simultaneous action must be taken in each of them, a single order may be granted by one of the appropriate pre …

Conditions of validity

The power to issue a search and seizure authorization (warrant) lies with the “juge des libertés et de la détention” (freedoms and detentions judge) of the tribunal judiciaire. If the investigation requires that searches be conducted at a number of locations in different jurisdictions and simultaneous action must be taken in each of them, a single order may be granted by one of the appropriate presiding judges. The warrant does not have to be delivered in open court, its validity is not dependent on the court being assisted by a secretary, nor on the signature of a clerk . The presence of the Public Prosecutor is also not required .

The decision to grant the authorization should specify that the application was made in the context of an investigation ordered by the Minister of the Economy or by the rapporteur général (chief case-handler) of the Competition Authority  and that agents carrying out the investigation have the standing to do so . It should also mention the name of the judge having issued the warrant , and the fact that a delegated judge has been properly delegated . Where applicable, it must also indicate the remedies and deadlines available to the occupier of the premises or his representative (Commercial Code, Art. R. 450-2), although the contact details and cell phone number of the liberties and detention judge do not have to be included . The warrant does not have to specify the conditions and procedures for bringing a case before the court in the event of a challenge to the conduct of the proceedings authorized by the warrant , nor does it specify that the police officer in charge of witnessing the operations must at all times be accountable to the court . Article L. 450-4 of the Commercial Code does not require the occupants of the premises to be informed of the possibility of appealing of to the freedoms and detentions judge having authorized the inspection to have the legality of the measures in progress reviewed, since the right to challenge the operations before the First President of the Court of Appeal guarantees them an effective legal remedy . A search warrant is not required to contain the wording of an executory order .

When the investigation by the Minister of the Economy's agents involve matters falling within Articles L. 420-1 or L. 420-2 on anticompetitive practices, the rapporteur must be immediately informed prior to the start of the investigations and may decide to take charge of them. The rapporteur général must also be immediately informed of the outcome of investigations and can propose to the Competition Authority that it assume jurisdiction of its own motion (Commercial Code, Art. L. 450-5). Failure to mention in the order the fact that the rapporteur général has been informed of the operation by the Minister of the Economy has no impact on its validity insofar as this is an internal measure which does not adversely affect the undertaking subject to the search . The warrant does not have to set out the Administration's claims, as long as they are clear from the terms of the decision . Lastly, the warrant stipulates that the occupier of the premises or his representative may retain legal counsel. 

Exercising that option does not prevent the operations from going ahead.

Notification also does not have to be made before the investigators enter the premises, as the search may be conducted by surprise in order to guarantee its effectiveness (dawn raids) . Article L. 450-4(5) stipulates that the warrant may be orally served in situ as the search begins to the occupant or his representative, who receives a full copy against receipt or by entry in the minutes . If the occupant or representative is absent, the authorization is sent by registered letter with return receipt after the search. However, the “site accountant” present on the premises is validly served with a search and seizure order when neither that person, nor the director general who arrived later, has contested her status as occupant of the premises or representative of the undertaking in the respective minutes signed by them .

Cass. com. 12 January 1999, LawLex200200003016JBJ.

Cass. com. 8 September 2010, LawLex201000001124JBJ; Cass. crim. 7 September 2011, LawLex201100001561JBJ, which specifies that Article L. 450-4 of the Commercial Code does not require the public prosecutor to be heard before the court grants authorization to carry out searches and seizures.

Cass. com. 12 March 1996, LawLex200003308JBJ; 13 May 1997, LawLex200002210JBJ; 3 May 2000, LawLex200002981JBJ.

CA Rennes, 2 July 2014, LawLex201400002210JBJ upheld by Cass. crim., 9 March 2016, LawLex201600000548JBJ, above.  Also see, CA Nîmes, 10 February 2015, LawLex201500000226JBJ.

Cass. com., 29 October 1991, LawLex200200002706JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 01-D-07 of 11 April 2001, LawLex200200002411JBJ; Cass. crim., 25 January 2001, LawLex200200002398JBJ.

See in particular. Competition Council decision No. 95-D-01 of 3 January 1995, LawLex200002560JBJ; No. 01-D-07 of 11 April 2001, LawLex200002411JBJ; CA Paris, January 22, 2002, LawLex200002258JBJ.

CA Papeete, 6 April 2022, LawLex202200002245JBJ.

For examples from before the NRE Law came into force, transferring the power to seek a court-ordered investigation to the rapporteur général, instead of the Competition Council as collegial body: Cass. com., 10 March 1992, LawLex200200003003JBJ; 12 July 1993, LawLex200200002996JBJ.

Cass. com., 15 July 1992, LawLex200200002539JBJ; 16 January 1996, LawLex200200003401JBJ.

Cass. com., 10 March 1992, LawLex200200002286JBJ.

Cass. com, 10 January 1992, LawLex200003003JBJ; 24 January 1995, LawLex200002997JBJ.

CA Paris, 18 November 2015, LawLex201500001665JBJ, upheld by Cass. crim. 28 June 2017, LawLex201700001167JBJ.

Cass. crim., 4 September 2002, LawLex200300000602JBJ.

Cass. crim., 2 October 2002, LawLex200300000652JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 14 November 2017, LawLex201700001897JBJ.

Cass. crim., 9 March 2016, 2 rulings, LawLex201600000545JBJ and LawLex201600000548JBJ; 21 March 2018 LawLex201800000505JBJ,

French Competition Law

414. Conditions of validity

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

414. Conditions of validity

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