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

Actions before the Competition Authority can be brought by the Minister of the Economy, undertakings, regional or local authorities, professional or labor organizations, approved consumer groups, chambers of agriculture or of trade and commerce, professional organizations, the High Authority for the dissemination of works and the protection of rights on the internet and the presidents of the price …

Persons entitled to bring an action

Actions before the Competition Authority can be brought by the Minister of the Economy, undertakings, regional or local authorities, professional or labor organizations, approved consumer groups, chambers of agriculture or of trade and commerce, professional organizations, the High Authority for the dissemination of works and the protection of rights on the internet and the presidents of the price, margins and revenue observatories of Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion, the department of Mayotte, the islands of Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon, where the case touches on matters of interest to these groups. The list is exhaustive, and the Competition Authority cannot hear actions brought by groups not mentioned therein . The Authority also enjoys the right to instigate an action itself (Art. L. 462-5).

1) Actions brought by the Minister of the Economy. 

After an investigation carried out at his request or following a complaint made by an undertaking, the Minister of the Economy may decide to bring a matter before the Competition Authority,  for any anticompetitive practice within the meaning of Articles L. 420-1, L. 420-2, L. 420-2-1, L. 420-2-2 and L. 420-5 or contrary to the measures taken pursuant to Article L. 410-3, or facts likely to constitute such a practice . 

The fact the Minister exercises a supervisory function as regards the person named in the action is of little importance . The referral by the Minister of the Economy therefore enables the Authority to be informed of facts likely to characterize an infringement that its own investigation department will investigate.  The referral is normally made by way of letter signed by the director of the DGCCRF acting on permanent delegation. The referral can also be made by a delegated minister. In such case, the delegation of authority must be prior to the letter of referral . The Minister's standing before the Authority derives from Articles L. 462-5 and L. 410-1. In this regard, there is nothing to prevent the Minister from grouping together conduct occurring in different bid contracts, as long as each involves the same or similar techniques, raw materials and legal characterization, and has been performed by the same undertakings .

Undertakings may bring actions before the Competition Authority where they show the necessary standing, i.e. where they demonstrate a direct and personal legitimate interest. The Authority evaluates the existence of such an interest with respect to the date of the complaint, and not the date of the alleged act itself. The undertaking must therefore exist and be active on the market at the time the action is brought . Where the action is brought by natural persons, they must carry out a commercial activity in their own name so as to qualify as an undertaking under Article L. 462-5 . 

3) Actions brought by professional organizations  or organizations for the protection of particular interests. 

The act of referral of such persons must be presented by their mandated or qualified representatives . For such organizations to bring an action before the Competition Authority, they must demonstrate their right to act on behalf of their members. Proof is normally taken from their charter .

4) Action brought by local or regional authorities. 

The Competition Authority may give its opinion on competition issues at the request of local authorities, which are entitled to refer all cases to it concerning the interests for which they are responsible .

5) Actions brought by the ARCEP ("Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes" - regulatory authority for electronic and postal communications). 

The president of the ARCEP refers incidents of abuse of a dominant position and anticompetitive practices in the telecommunications sector to the Competition Authority. This referral may take the form of an emergency procedure where the Authority must give its decision within thirty working days following the date of submission . The president may also make a referral for consultation .

6) Actions brought by the Competition Authority on its own initiative. 

As we have already seen, the Competition Authority is an independent administrative agency. As such it can act on its own initiative. The referral is made on the proposal of the rapporteur général and may take the form of a simple oral recommendation that does not have to be communicated to the parties .  It may concern any anticompetitive practice within the meaning of Articles L. 420-1, L. 420-2, L. 420-2-1, L. 420-2-2 or L. 420-5, or facts likely to characterize such a practice . The Authority has established a non-exhaustive list of situations for doing so . Thus, the Competition Authority may bring an action itself:

a) where it refuses an application on grounds of insufficient evidence, in order to examine the market situation more closely and assess whether further action should be taken; 

b) where the initial investigation turns up evidence of anticompetitive practices on neighboring or secondary markets or on geographically distinct markets; 

c) where interested parties choose not to act, the Authority can decide to act in their place where there is information justifying the investigation. It has been ruled that, if the Competition Authority has reason to fear that competition is being affected in a market, it may take up the matter of its own initiative and have the necessary investigations carried out . 

In addition, under Article D. 450-3 of the Commercial Code, the Minister of the Economy is required to inform the rapporteur général of the results of the investigations carried out and to forward all documents relating to the proceedings. The rapporteur général may then recommend that the Competition Authority take up the results of the investigation on its own initiative. According to this text, the Authority has a time-limit of two months to decide whether or not to initiate investigations ex offcio. If the Authority does not act within the two-month time-limit, the rapporteur général must inform the Minister. In addition, if the rapporteur général fails to notify the Authority of its decision within 65 days of the transmission of the documents in the proceedings, the Minister of the Economy may take the measures provided for in Articles L. 462-5 and L. 464-9, or close the case. The Authority considers that the expiry of the 65-day time-limit does not have the effect of irrevocably relinquishing its jurisdiction and preventing it from ruling on a case when it falls within the scope of Article 101 TFEU and the Minister of the Economy therefore does not have the authority to take actionr . Similarly, it considers that exceeding the two-month period provided for in Article D. 450-3, which in its view is not mandatory, does not prevent it from investigating the case itself .

The Paris Court of Appeal has specified the consequences of withdrawing a complaint . Making a complaint to the Authority brings to its attention behavior that is possibly anticompetitive. As the Authority is in control of the proceedings, it may continue to consider the matter, especially when an inadmissible action or a complaint withdrawal reveals activity that is contrary to public economic policy. Withdrawing a complaint therefore does not affect the validity of an Authority decision when it has information leading it to suspect harm to competition . According to the Paris Court of Appeal, the purpose of the Authority's intervention is not to satisfy the claims of one party but to sanction any anticompetitive practice affecting the market .

In any case, the Paris Court of Appeal has held that the Authority is in no way obliged to account for why it decides to use this power to bring an action  in order specifically to put it in a position to give its own direction to competition policy.  It subsequently confirmed this solution by deciding that the Competition Authority may prosecute of its own initiative undertakings for anticompetitive practices in a sector for which it had previously issued an opinion . Although the Competition Authority and the Paris Court of Appeal have ruled that action brought by the former of its own motion does not violate the principle of impartiality since it merely constitutes a form of devolution to the Competition Authority of the facts reported in a leniency application , the Court of Cassation nevertheless considered it necessary to refer to the Constitutional Council for a priority preliminary ruling regarding compliance of the procedure with the principle of impartiality . The latter considered that the ex officio action by the Competition Authority does not violate the principle of independence and impartiality provided that it contains sufficient guarantees, such as the investigation of the case under the sole direction of the rapporteur général or the absence of the latter at the deliberations of the Authority . Moreover, an action brought by the Authority of its own motion does not constitute prejudice within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR when it does not name any market, operator or specific offense .

Competition Council decision No 88-D-34 of 21 September 1988; No 98-D-18 of 10 March 1998, LawLex200200002529JBJ; No 00-D-65 of 22 November 2000, LawLex200200002715JBJ; No 00-D-92 of 23 February 2001, LawLex200200002681JBJ.

The Minister of the Economy may also refer to the Authority breaches of commitments made pursuant to merger decisions adopted prior to the Ordinance of 13 November 2008.Cases in which the Minister of the Economy refers to the Authority “facts likely to constitute such a practice” within the meaning of Article L. 462-5 concerns situations where he refers directly to the Authority practices likely to undermine the economic public order that need to be investigated by the Authority's case-handlers: Competition Authority decision No 11-MC-01 of 12 May 2011, LawLex201100000900JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 00-MC-19 of 5 December 2000, LawLex200200003273JBJ.

Article L. 36-10 Post and Telecommunications Code; Competition Council opinion No 99-A-13 of 7 September 1999, LawLex200200003405JBJ; No 98-A-24 of 16 December 1998, LawLex200200003404JBJ.

CA Paris, 19 July 2018, LawLex201800001111JBJ.

Breaches of commitments made pursuant to merger decisions prior to the Ordinance of 13 November 2008 may also be subject to ex officio referral.

CA Paris, 17 June 1992, LawLex200200002809JBJ.

Competition Authority decision No 20-D-20 of 3 December 2020, LawLex202000003445JBJ; similarly, Competition Authority decision No 21-D-26 of 8 November 2021, LawLex202100005760JBJ.

Competition Authority decision No 21-D-26 of 8 November 2021, LawLex202100005760JBJ, cited above; No 23-D-12 of 11 December 2023, LawLex202300014350JBJ; No 24-D-02 of 6 February 2024, LawLex202400001357JBJ.

CA Paris, 8 September 1998, LawLex200200002767JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 01-D-30 of 22 May 2001, LawLex200200002368JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 91-D-55 of 3 December 1991, LawLex200200002308JBJ, concerning the “Ordre des géomètres-experts” (Order of Chartered Surveyors).

For an application of these principles, see Competition Council decision No 00-D-87 of 13 February 2001, LawLex200200002683JBJ.

CA Paris, 27 November 2001, LawLex200200002280JBJ.

CA Paris, 24 June 2003, LawLex200300002972JBJ.

CA Paris, 27 November 2014, LawLex201400001383JBJ.

 Cass. com., 9 July 2015, LawLex201500000921JBJ.

Constitutional Council decision No 2015-489 QPC of 14 October 2015, LawLex201500001251JBJ. On referral see Cass. com., 8 November 2016, LawLex201600001827JBJ; 4 October 2017, LawLex201700001637JBJ.

Competition Authority decision No 15-D-19 of 15 December 2015, LawLex201500001733JBJ; No 16-D-20 of 29 September 2016, LawLex201600001601JBJ; CA Paris, 22 September 2016, LawLex201600001550JBJ; Cass. com., 4 October 2017, LawLex201700001637JBJ; 14 September 2023, LawLex202300011514JBJ.

CA Paris, 13 November 2001, LawLex200200002205JBJ; Competition Council decision No 04-D-04 of 20 February 2004, LawLex200400000509JBJ, recalling the principle of admissibility of the referral made by the delegated minister.

CA Paris, 1st December 1992, LawLex200200002525JBJ; 4 July 1994, LawLex200200003037JBJ, on public works contracts.

Competition Council decision No 95-D-24 of 29 March 1995, LawLex200200002451JBJ, the director of a liquidated undertaking does not have standing to seize the Council.

CA Paris, 1st December 1995, LawLex200200003158JBJ, on the obligation for a natural person to carry on a commercial activity in his or her own name; 18 June 1996, LawLex200200003407JBJ, upheld by Cass. com., 16 June 1998, LawLex200200002595JBJ, on the requirement of being a supplier on the market in question; Competition Council decision No 00-D-65 of 22 November 2000, LawLex200200002715JBJ, on the lack of standing of a job seeker to bring a case before the Council.

CA Paris, 15 April 1992, LawLex200200003115JBJ, admissibility of the act of referral of an association, presented by another qualified association representing it; Competition Council decision No 00-D-23 of 31 May 2000, LawLex200200002557JBJ, admissibility of the referral to the Council by an approved consumers group; No 03-D-26 of 4 June 2003, LawLex200300002453JBJ: referral to the Competition Council is an act of ordinary civil life for which the president of a professional confederation is authorized to represent the organization.

Competition Council decision No 95-MC-01 of 8 February 1995, LawLex200200003403JBJ, on professional organizations; No 97-D-30 of 14 May 1997, LawLex200200002978JBJ, on an authorized consumer group.

CA Paris, 3 June 1993, LawLex200200002729JBJ, standing of a local “commune”.

French Competition Law

427. Persons entitled to bring an action

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

427. Persons entitled to bring an action

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