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 Court of Appeal may reform or overrule any Competition Authority decision. Court of Appeal review in appeals for revocation of the initial decision is similar to that in cases of an action for abuse of power by an administrative body. In particular, the Court looks to see whether the Authority has gone beyond its jurisdiction in a given area, whether it has complied with the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 6), the procedural rules set out in the Commercial Code, and whether it has respected the rights of defense. The Court also examines whether the Authority has made an error in law in its interpretation of Articles L. 420-1, L. 420-2, L. 420-2-1, L. 420-2-2 and L. 420-5 or Articles 101 and 102 TFEU , or a manifest error in evaluating the facts, especially where it imposes a fine.

Where the Court of Appeal finds that the Authority failed to respect the rules of procedure, irremediably prejudiced defense rights, or provoked the inadmissibility of all the evidence, the Authority decision is entirely voided . Where this is not the case, the Court judges the case both in fact and in law. In this case, it has a number of options: it can either refer the case to the Authority for a new hearing and decision , or refer the case back to the Competition Authority solely for further investigation, without relinquishing jurisdiction over the merits of the case , or it takes a new decision on the case as it stands, and its decision replaces that of the Authority ; or it takes a new decision, but first requests an expert appraisal . A Court of Appeal annulment can be partial .

As to whether the Court of Appeal has the power to rule on the case or only to annul or refer the case for re-trial,  the Court has declared itself competent to rule on the practices at issue in the Competition Authority's decision, pursuant to Article L. 464-2 of the Commercial Code. This prerogative, resulting from the combination of Articles L. 464-8 of the aforementioned Code and 561 of the Civil Code of Procedure, to rule, in fact and in law, on the objections notified, should not be confused with the power of partial annulment (réformation), under Article L. 464-8, as the Court rules on the basis of the evidence in the case file, without regard to the Competition Authority decision it has previously annulled . In this way, the Court is able to determine the penalty to be imposed on an undertaking for the sole infringement likely to be retained, whereas the Competition Authority has imposed a single penalty for all the practices in question A partial annulment of the Competition Authority's decision is subject to a full appeal procedure  . The Court of Appeal reassesses the facts and legal aspects of the case . Its subsequent decision totally or partially replaces that of the Competition Authority in whole or in part. It then has all the powers of Article L. 464-2. In exercising its full jurisdiction, the Paris Court of Appeal is not bound by the Competition Authority's Sanctions Notice , but may voluntarily choose to comply with it .  It may reduce the fine if it considers that the Competition Authority has not sufficiently considered the severity of the restriction during the infringement period, or taken into account the efforts made by the undertaking to bring its contracts into line with the rules of competition . On the other hand, it can only increase the penalties or injunctions imposed by the Competition Authority if the appeal has been lodged by the complainant or the Minister for the Economy .  It also has the option of postponing the imposition of a fine . The partial annulment of the Competition Authority's decision only takes effect from the date of notification of the appeal order, and does not retroactively amend the legal position of the company ordered to publish a decision, nor does it render the publication order unenforceable . Undertakings which have not appealed against the Competition Authority's decision cannot benefit from its partial annulment by the Paris Court of Appeal .

Like the Competition Authority, the Paris Court of Appeal can order the publication of a notice in newspapers , but cannot order the dissolution of an EIG , or as a general rule annul agreements . It also cannot award damages . Lastly, the Court cannot hear complaints that have not first been brought before the Competition Authority .

CA Paris, 27 June 2024, LawLex202400004856JBJ, holding that the Competition Authority's decision must be annulled where the Court of Justice, in a preliminary ruling in the case in question, has given an interpretation contrary to its own of the provisions of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 139/2004, under which Article 102 TFEU may be applied against a concentration that does not meet the control thresholds.

CA Paris, 26 September 1991, LawLex200200003348JBJ; 16 January 1992, LawLex200200003166JBJ; 10 September 1996, LawLex200200002353JBJ; 8 September 1998, LawLex200200002767JBJ, on the decision of the Competition Council to pursue the prosecution. See also CA Paris, 30 November 2023, LawLex202300014253JBJ, holding that breach of the adversarial principle, which did not allow an undertaking to effectively debate and criticize the points raised against it before its application was rejected, justifies the annulment of the Competition Authority's decision.

Cass. com. 22 November 2016, LawLex201600001914JBJ: reiterating that the Court of Appeal, when partially overturning the Competition Authority's decision, is obliged to examine the lawfulness of the practice in question for itself, or even to send the case back for further investigation if it considers that it does not have the necessary information to carry out the appropriate cost test.

Notice of 30 July 2021, which repeals and replaces that of 16 May 2011. For an application, See CA Paris, 25 September 2014, LawLex201400000965JBJ; 28 May 2015, LawLex201500000677JBJ.

CA Paris, 23 May 2017, LawLex201700000941JBJ.

CA Paris, 17 October 2019, LawLex201900001229JBJ.

Cass. com. 25 April 1989, LawLex200002659JBJ; CA Paris, 17 September 1992, LawLex200002661JBJ; 20 November 1992, LawLex200002773JBJ; 11 December 1992, LawLex200003383JBJ; 14 January 1993, LawLex200002473JBJ.

Cass. com, 25 April 1989, LawLex200002659JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 95-D-29 of 2 May 1995, LawLex200200003380JBJ.

Cass. com. 8 November 2016, LawLex201600001827JBJ.

Cass. com. 14 January 1992, LawLex200200002811JBJ.

CA Paris, 17 September 1992, LawLex200200002661JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 January 2003, LawLex200300000809JBJ; 13 March 2007, LawLex200700000325JBJ, which, finding the investigation insufficient, annulled and sent the case back for further investigation; 27 June  2024, LawLex202400004856JBJ, considering, after having annulled the Competition Authority's decision, and given that a significant amount of time has elapsed since the implementation of the disputed merger, that it is important to ensure, in a tangible manner, the capacity of the merger to hinder competition in a material way, by referring the case back to the Competition Authority for further investigation, in order to examine the changes in the market since the report of the investigating departments was drawn up, the changes in actual and potential competition on this market, as well as the trajectory and respective performances of the parties, insofar as these factors are likely to have an impact on the ex-post assessment of the effects of the merger on competition.

CA Paris, 6 November 1991, LawLex200200003292JBJ.

CA Paris, 2 July 1999, LawLex200200002636JBJ; 3 December 2015, LawLex201500001664JBJ.

CA Paris, 26 May 1988, LawLex200200003424JBJ.

CA Paris, 5 December 2024, LawLex202400009552JBJ; CA Paris, 22 May 2025, LawLex202500004168JBJ, referring the case back to the Competition Authority in order to guarantee the rights of the companies prosecuted, following the annulment of the report and the contested decision.

CA Paris, 8 February 2000, LawLex200200002844JBJ; 14 January 2003, LawLex200300000809JBJ; 1 February 2018, LawLex201800000203JBJ, emphasizing that parties cannot, in the context of an appeal against a Competition Authority decision, submit to the Paris Court of Appeal new practices or complaints that they have not denounced before the Authority and for which the Court has no means of investigation.

CA Paris, 16 November 1989, LawLex200200003381JBJ; 23 September 1992, LawLex200200003379JBJ.

CA Paris, 6 March 1991, LawLex200200003378JBJ, concerning a situation where the injunction was retained but the fine annulled; 29 March 1996, LawLex200200002737JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 January 2003, LawLex200300001099JBJ.

CA Paris, 23 September 2003, LawLex200300004436JBJ.

CA Paris, 16 January 2020, LawLex202000000058JBJ, underlining that a plea criticizing the Competition Authority's characterization of economic damage cannot seek the annulment of the decision, but only its partial annulment (réformation).

508. Ruling of the Paris Court of Appeal