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 Competition Authority may, by reasoned decision, refuse to accept an application on grounds of the applying party's lack of interest or standing, where the matter is statute barred within the meaning of Article L. 462-7, or where it considers the matter outside its jurisdiction (Art. L. 462-8 Commercial Code). It may also discontinue a case it had initiated ex officio by reasoned decision. 
As …

Inadmissible applications

The Competition Authority may, by reasoned decision, refuse to accept an application on grounds of the applying party's lack of interest or standing, where the matter is statute barred within the meaning of Article L. 462-7, or where it considers the matter outside its jurisdiction (Art. L. 462-8 Commercial Code). It may also discontinue a case it had initiated ex officio by reasoned decision. 

As regards the application of Article L. 462-8, the rapporteur général may establish time-limits for the submission of evidence or observations (Art. R. 463-8, Commercial Code). Consequently, the production of documents to support the reality of the facts can be validly made by a transmission separate from the letter of referral . The Authority must notify the parties and the Minister of its decision as to admissibility (Article R. 464-8, 2°, Commercial Code.)

A matter is not considered as coming within the jurisdiction of the Competition Authority where 

- the practices do not fall within the scope of competition rules, i.e. do not involve production, distribution or services as set out in Article L. 410-1 ; 

- they cannot be characterized as anticompetitive either on the grounds of Articles 101-102 TFEU or L. 420-1, L. 420-2,  of the Commercial Code  or considered as not having any substantial effect, either actual or potential, on competition on the relevant market . 

If after investigation the Authority is of the opinion that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate an anticompetitive practice, the application is rejected by reasoned decision rather than declared inadmissible . The application is also rejected when the complainant has not, contrary to his obligation, substantiated the claim with sufficient evidence, as the Competition Authority is not required to rectify its failure to do so  . The power to refer the case for investigation is only one option available to the Competition Authority .  The competition authorities will deem there to be insufficient evidence when proof of the anticompetitive object or effect is not brought . This is the case when the anticompetitive effect of the practice originating from an operator in a dominant position on the market concerned has not been established  ,  the practice is not such as to actually eliminate the essential element of competition when the project owner was informed of it  ,  it does not in itself constitute an anticompetitive practice   or when the examination of the evidence gathered during the investigation does not reveal any indication of collusion or abuse of a dominant position .  The undertaking alleging a restriction of competition must provide a minimum of credible and verifiable information and clarification so that an investigation can be properly conducted  .  The Competition Authority may reject the application by reason of the impossibility of obtaining additional evidence when the local authority making the application has publicly communicated to such an extent on the exercise of its action that the effectiveness of any investigative measure carried out by the investigation services would be impracticable  or when the complaint has become devoid of purpose .

The Ordinance of 4 November 2004 adapting certain provisions of the Commercial Code to European competition law added further grounds for rejecting a referral, to take account of the parallel jurisdiction regime introduced by Regulation No 1/2003. Thus, the Competition Authority will reject a referral if it is made aware that the competition authority of another Member State or the Commission has dealt with the same facts on the basis of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, or that they are in the process of being dealt with by the authority of another Member State . In the latter case, when the information reaches the rapporteur at the investigation stage, the rapporteur general may suspend the investigation. The procedure may be terminated even if the Competition Authority has taken up the case on its own initiative.

In order to lighten the Authority's workload, the Macron Law of 6 August 2015  has added to the list in Article L. 462-8 now authorizing the dismissal of the application where the case can be handled  by the Minister of the Economy in application of Article L. 464-9 which provides for the possibility to come to a settlement for anticompetitive micro-practices . Going further, in accordance with the ECN+ Directive, Ordinance No 2021-469 of 26 May 2021 now allows the Authority to reject referrals “when it does not consider them a priority”. This power does not, however, extend to referrals made by the Minister of the Economy . The Competition Authority has made use of this option in cases where the practices complained of had already been the subject of numerous rulings, at both national and European level, and could be dealt with by the civil and commercial courts, which it deemed better placed to deal with them , or when the referral was not intended to put an end to actual anticompetitive practices that had had consequences on the market , or was only intended to provide compensation .

An appeal against a decision of inadmissibility tends to result in the case being returned to the Authority; the Paris Court of Appeal has no investigative powers under Articles L. 463-2 and L. 463-4 of the Commercial Code .

CA Paris, 18 January 1997, LawLex200200003398JBJ, on appeal against Competition Council decision No 95-D-86 of 19 December 1995, LawLex200200002860JBJ. 

See notably Competition Council decision No 98-D-13 of 27 January 1998, LawLex200200003343JBJ, inadmissibility of the referral concerning the decisions of the Minister of the Interior to set up a procedure for the remote transmission of applications for the registration of vehicles and the designation of managing undertakings; No 02-D-52 of 4 September 2002, LawLex200200002138JBJ, ruling inadmissible the application relating to agreements, the entry into force of which is subject to the approval of the ministerial authority, which are of a regulatory nature and do not fall within the Council's jurisdiction; No 04-D-02 of 10 February 2004, LawLex200400000369JBJ, which rules out the possibility that the Council may review the legality of the intervention of a public person in the competitive sector and the qualification of the subsidies it receives under the regulations on State aid; CA Paris, 16 January 2025, LawLex202500000614JBJ, holding that the letter by which a bâtonnier (president of local bar council), acting on behalf of the bar council of the Marseille bar which he chairs, invites one of its members - who initiated the creation of a competing bar association - to dissolve that structure under threat of disciplinary sanction for breach of lawyers' ethical duties, constitutes the exercise of public authority prerogatives, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the Competition Authority.

Competition Council decision No 02-D-26 of 9 April 2002, LawLex200200002224JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 03-D-58 of 9 December 2003, LawLex200400000017JBJ; CA Paris, 17 September 2008, LawLex200800001666JBJ.

CA Paris, 4 May 2004, LawLex200400000953JBJ: “beyond general developments on the subordination that would necessarily characterize the concession holder's situation in relation to the concession grantor, the CNPA did not establish, as it is required to do, the tangible facts capable of demonstrating that specific undertakings have suffered, under conditions falling within the scope of Article L. 420-2 of the Commercial Code, the effects of abusive practices attributable to one or other of the undertakings concerned by the act of referral”.

Competition Authority decision No 19-D-06 of 19 April 2019, LawLex201900000573JBJ.

Competition Authority decision No 20-D-14 of 26 October 2020, LawLex202000002940JBJ: the applicant's complaint of abuse of a dominant position has become moot, since the amendments to the Google Ads Rules likely to adversely affect its interests or contrary to the protective measures ordered in its favor in Decision No 19-MC-01 were covered by the injunctions ordered in Decision No 19-D-26 ruling on the referral of a competitor and which Google carried out after the referral.

Competition Authority decision No. 19-D-23 of 10 December 2019, LawLex201900001565JBJ, holding that the Competition Authority may reject a referral regardless of the outcome of the case's treatment by the national competition authority previously seized of the matter.

Law No 2015-990 of 6 August 2015 for growth, activity and equality of economic opportunities, OJ No 181 of 7 August 2015, 13537.  

i.e. practices not falling within Articles 101 or 102 TFEU, committed by undertaking whose individual turnover in France for the last fiscal year ended does not exceed EUR 50 million and whose combined turnover does not exceed EUR 200 million.

Commercial Code, Article L. 462-8, in its wording further to Ordinance No 2021-649 of 26 May 2021.

Competition Authority decision No 22-D-19 of 20 October 2022, LawLex202200008802JBJ; No. 24-D-01 of 1 February 2024, LawLex202400000694JBJ.

See Competition Council decision No 96-D-21 of 3 April 1996, LawLex200200002317JBJ, on acts of unfair competition; No 96-D-29 of 30 April 1996, LawLex200200002316JBJ, a dispute over new conditions of payment; Cass. com., 26 November 1996, LawLex200200002044JBJ, absence of anticompetitive practices distinct from the merger involved.

Competition Authority decision No 24-D-04 of 18 March 2024, LawLex202400002597JBJ.

Competition Authority decision No 23-D-10 of 4 October 2023, LawLex202300012085JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 November 2000, LawLex200200003280JBJ.

See CA Paris, 22 January 1992, LawLex200200002744JBJ; Cass. com., 4 May 1993, LawLex200200002721JBJ; CA Paris, 28 January 1997, LawLex200200003398JBJ, appealing Competition Council decision No 95-D-86 of 19 December 1995, LawLex200200002860JBJ; Competition Authority decision No 09-D-37 of 10 December 2009, LawLex200900003610JBJ, which states that the claimant must provide a minimum of credible and verifiable information and justifications in order for an investigation to go ahead.

See Competition Council decision No 97-D-46 of 11 June 1997, LawLex200200002965JBJ.

Cass. com., 9 October 2012, LawLex201200002178JBJ.

CA Paris, 12 May 2016, LawLex201600000937JBJ.

Cass. com, 19 January 2016, LawLex201600000193JBJ: “competition law and in particular Article L. 420-2 of the Commercial Code only applies if the sudden termination of the commercial relationship has had an actual or potential anticompetitive object or effects; the judgment holds, on the grounds adopted, that the evidence presented by E-Kanopi is not sufficiently conclusive to characterize the anticompetitive object or effects of the termination of contractual relations by Google”.

Competition Council decision No 91-D-35 of 10 July 1991, LawLex200200002933JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 02-D-17 of 12 March 2002, LawLex200200002230JBJ.

French Competition Law

431. Inadmissible applications

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

431. Inadmissible applications

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