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

In terms of a purely qualitative selective distribution system, it was traditionally held that an authorized distributor who still met the applicable selection criteria was entitled to the renewal of its contract . The supplier's refusal to renew the contract, whereas the distributor still meets the selection criteria was even held to be anticompetitive . The Paris Court of Appeal has invalidated  …

Cause for non-renewal.

In terms of a purely qualitative selective distribution system, it was traditionally held that an authorized distributor who still met the applicable selection criteria was entitled to the renewal of its contract . The supplier's refusal to renew the contract, whereas the distributor still meets the selection criteria was even held to be anticompetitive . The Paris Court of Appeal has invalidated this case law and enshrined the right for network leaders not to renew selective distribution contracts even if the distributor has not committed a fault and continues to comply with the authorization criteria .

Under this new case law, the network head which has complied with the terms and conditions contractually laid down in terminating the contract is therefore not required to give reasons for its decision not to renew the contract at its term  and cannot be obliged to supply the distributor under the same terms after the termination . Suppliers are also free to change their selection criteria and to make them more demanding. Distributors must in such cases meet the new criteria in order to remain in the network. Also, the non-renewal of a contract notified following several unanswered e-mails concerning the requirement for the distributor to come to an agreement on annual objectives, to identify itself as an official dealer of the brand and to cease marketing competing brands is not unfair, especially where the manufacturer has granted a notice period of twelve months longer than the period stipulated in the contract .

Network reorganizations may also justify non-renewal either in the case of the strengthening of the qualitative criteria, or in the case of the creation or reduction of the quantitative criteria added to the qualitative criteria, or in case of conversion into an exclusive distribution system or franchise territorially restricting the number of distributors. This is the case where some distributors no longer meet the criteria of quality, selectivity and sales potential  or where the conversion from multi-brand distribution to mono-brand distribution requires a limit to the number of sales outlets in one geographic area . The non-renewal notified to distributors within the contractual notice period cannot, in this case, be challenged by them . By contrast, replacing certain distributors with exclusive dealers, while not questioning the applicability of the selection criteria to other distributors, cannot be considered as a reorganization justifying a non-renewal .

Lastly, renewal may be refused if the distributor does not comply with its contractual obligations. Inadequacies in the brand environment and the turnover  or in the number of orders to ensure stock rotation  can justify a non-renewal. During the notice period, a refusal to sell is not characterized as a breach of the supplier's obligations if it is justified by the inability of the distributor to sell off stocks ordered prior to the expiry of the contractual relationship .

CA Paris, 25 October 1991, LawLex200200004424JBJ.

CA Paris, 24 September 1990, LawLex200200005797JBJ; Cass. com., 27 April 1993, LawLex200200005989JBJ.

CA Paris, 9 November 2000, LawLex200300001547JBJ.

CA Paris, 26 January 2001, LawLex200300002065JBJ.

CA Paris, 29 January 2014, LawLex201400000163JBJ.

CA Paris, 7 Octobre 2015, LawLex201500001240JBJ , upheld by Cass. com., 8 June 2017, LawLex201700001013JBJ; CA Paris, 14 October 2015, LawLex201500001312JBJ.

CA Paris, 12 September 2018, LawLex201800001255JBJ; 16 February 2022, LawLex202200001049JBJ.

Cass. com., 8 June 2017, LawLex201700001013JBJ.

CA Paris, 14 October 2015, LawLex201500001312JBJ.

Competition Council decision No 02-D-26 of 9 April 2002, LawLex200200002224JBJ; No 02-D-56 of 17 September 2002, LawLex200200002133JBJ; CA Paris, 22 June 2006, LawLex200600002461JBJ; Cass. com., 2 December 2008, LawLex200800002172JBJ.

T. com. Cannes, 5 September 1996, LawLex200200004728JBJ.

Cass. com., 27 April 1993, LawLex200200005989JBJ.

French Distribution Law

233. Cause for non-renewal.

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

233. Cause for non-renewal.

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