This book provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to distribution: exclusive purchase and exclusive supply, exclusive and selective distribution, motor vehicle distribution, franchises, commercial agents.

French Distribution Law

The supplier is free to choose the method of distribution it sees fit, on condition that he does not infringe the competition rules when refusing a candidate reseller. The network promoter can decide on the strategy of development and establishment and may leave a territory free of any representation  or have several types of commercial relationships with its distributors coexist, and can, in part …

Freedom to choose distribution system.

The supplier is free to choose the method of distribution it sees fit, on condition that he does not infringe the competition rules when refusing a candidate reseller. The network promoter can decide on the strategy of development and establishment and may leave a territory free of any representation  or have several types of commercial relationships with its distributors coexist, and can, in particular, create only a few exclusive territories provided that there is no discrimination within each category of distributors . It can also change the organization of the distribution network without the distributors having an automatic right to insist on maintaining the status quo . It is now even possible to provide for shared exclusivity by allocating a territory or group of customers on an exclusive basis to a maximum of five purchasers .

The freedom to organize the network is a basic principle subject to the proviso that the methods of distribution chosen do not have as their object or effect the distortion of the functioning of the market . It is thus open to the supplier to consolidate the distribution of its products and regroup them within a single undertaking without that operation being qualified as an anticompetitive agreement between the producer and the new distributor . The supplier can decide to switch from a selective distribution system to an exclusive distribution , or from an exclusive distribution system to a franchising system : the decision to favor one network over another is not anticompetitive in character . The change should not be done in haste or give rise to a sudden or abusive breaking-off of business relations. The distributor must have received adequate notice. Similarly, the supplier is free to establish a system which combines selective and exclusive distribution as long as active and passive sales are permitted and it is within the thresholds laid down by EU law .

In the name of the principle of freedom to organize the network, the supplier may take protective measures by granting aid to distributors who have been appreciably affected by the development of parallel imports, where that aid stimulates competition between network members and non-network distributors . This is the case for a system of commercial aid to dealers whose activity has been affected locally, and appreciably, by the development of parallel imports, when the manufacturer is not in a dominant position on the market at issue, the aid is not intended to restrict the commercial freedom of the recipients, is not granted in a discriminatory manner and contributes to the development of competition .

TGI Paris, 7 September 2004, LawLex200400002212JBJ: “[the contractor] is free to choose its partner and to leave a territory free of any dealership […] the strategy for the development of a network of exclusive or specific dealerships concerns the car manufacturer alone, without complaints being levelled against him for the refusal to set up an automobile dealership in a determined geographic sector.” 

CA Paris, 2 November 2016, LawLex201600001816JBJ.

CA Paris, 29 June 2004, LawLex200400001644JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 03-D-66 of 23 December 2003, LawLex200400000056JBJ; No 03-D-67 of 23 December 2003, LawLex200400000078JBJ; confirmed by CA Paris, 29 June 2004, LawLex200400001644JBJ; 12 July 2005, LawLex200500009786JBJ; upheld by Cass. com., 17 January 2006, LawLex200600000439JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 98-D-32 of 26 May 1998, LawLex200200003173JBJ; See also, for a recent restatement of the principle, Cass. com., 2 December 2008, LawLex200800002172JBJ, confirming “The right for any supplier to modify the organization of its distribution network without its customers having an acquired right to the maintenance of their situation”; CA Paris, 21 January 2009, LawLex200900000112JBJ; CA Paris 3 May 2017, LawLex201700000823JBJ.

Regulation No 2022/720 of 10 May 2022 on the application of Article 101(3) TFEU  to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, Art. 1(1)(h).

Competition Council decision No 04-D-55 of 10 November 2004, LawLex200400003259JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 01-D-42 of 11 September 2001, LawLex200200003432JBJ. 

CA Paris, 10 February 1995, LawLex200200005448JBJ. 

CA Paris, 16 October 1992, LawLex200200002640JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 06-D-26 of 15 September 2006, LawLex200600001971JBJ. 

Competition Council decision No 03-D-42 of 18 August 2003 relative to practices implemented by Suzuki and others on the motorcycle distribution market, LawLex200300003459JBJ: Article 4 of the Regulation on Vertical Restraints prohibits bans on active and passive sales within a system combining selective and exclusive distribution; confirmed in appeal by CA Paris, 4 May 2004, LawLex200400000953JBJ.

French Distribution Law

50. Freedom to choose distribution system.

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

50. Freedom to choose distribution system.

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

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