La Commission ne peut ordonner le désinvestissement d'une participation minoritaire, non constitutive d'une concentration, sans outrepasser ses compétences, dès lors qu'en vertu de l'article 8, par. 4, du règlement 139-2004, elle n'a le pouvoir d'ordonner la cession de la totalité des actions acquises par une entreprise dans une autre que "pour rétablir la situation antérieure à la réalisation de la concentration".

TUE, 3e ch., 6 juillet 2010, n° T-411/07

Cass. 3e civ., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-66.757

Cass. com., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-70.544

Cass. com., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-67.940

CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 8, 6 juillet 2010, n° 10/03837

Cass. 3e civ., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-12.323

CJUE, gr. ch., 6 juillet 2010, n° C-428/08

Cass. com., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-15.066

Cass. com., 6 juillet 2010, n° 09-14.937

EC, July 5, 2010, No M.5838

Aucune des sociétés actuellement détenues par les deux fonds de placement à risque gérés par l'acquéreur n'est active sur les marchés sur lesquels le groupe cible est actif ou présentant avec ceux-ci des liens verticaux ou de connexité.

Relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif du groupe Maxiper par la société Edmond de Rothschild Capital Partners

ADLC, 5 juillet 2010, n° 10-DCC-72

La concentration qui confère aux hypermarchés exloités par  le groupe ITM une part de marché de 12 % contre 26 %, pour Leclerc, 22 % pour le groupe U, 21 % pour Carrefour, 9 % pour Casino et 7 % pour Cora, n'est pas de nature à porter atteinte à la concurrence.

Relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif des sociétés Rechan et Bain Distribution SA par la société ITM Alimentaire Ouest

ADLC, 5 juillet 2010, n° 10-DCC-70

EC, July 2, 2010, No M.5864

CA Aix-en-Provence, 15e ch. A, 2 juillet 2010, n° 09/00807

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-568/08

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-64/08

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-63/08

Un juge ne saurait accueillir l'action d'un acheteur en garantie des vices cachés dès lors qu'il résulte de ses propres constatations que les vices étaient apparents.

Cass. 1re civ., 1 juillet 2010, n° 09-14.900

L'article 1645 du Code civil pose une présomption irréfragable de connaissance par le vendeur professionnel du vice de la chose vendue qui l'oblige à réparer l'intégralité de tous les dommages en résultant.

Cass. 1re civ., 1 juillet 2010, n° 09-16.114

Il incombe à la régie publicitaire, assimilée par la loi de 1993 au vendeur d'espaces publicitaires, d'apporter la preuve de la communication directe à l'annonceur des factures dont elle réclame le paiement.

La preuve d'un mandat dans les conditions de la loi du 29 janvier 1993 est apportée lorsqu'une régie publicitaire produit la photocopie d'une attestation de mandat signée et portant en tête le cachet du mandant.

CA Versailles, 12e ch. sect. 1, 1 juillet 2010, n° 09-02820

Tax legislation which levies supplementary municipal tax on income from investments made in another Member State but not on income from investments made on the national territory, constitutes in itself an unfavorable tax treatment which is inconsistent with the free movement of capital.

CJEU, 1st chamber, July 1, 2010, No C-233/09

The gradual nature of the increase in sales of a new product replacing an existing product cannot, in itself, suffice to conclude that the existing product exercises a significant competitive constraint over the new one.

The initial setting and maintenance of the price of a new category of products at a level which is significantly higher than that of other products used within the same therapeutic area reflect a low degree of substitutability from those other products.

Although they are prescribed to treat the same conditions, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and antihistamines (H2 blockers) do not belong to the same market where they are used differently, IPPs being essentially prescribed to treat the severe forms of gastrointestinal acid-related conditions while H2 blockers are prescribed to treat the less severe forms of those conditions.

Insofar as it is not established that the deregistration of the marketing authorizations of Losec in Denmark and Norway were capable of affecting parallel imports, the fine of EUR 60 million should be reduced to EUR 52.5 million.

The conversion of Losec capsules to Losec MUPS, i.e. the withdrawal from the market of Losec capsules and the introduction of Losec MUPS, is not capable in itself of constituting an abuse of dominant position unless it is motivated by the creation of regulatory obstacles to the market entry of generic products and to parallel imports of Losec.

The preparation by an undertaking, even if in a dominant position, of a strategy centered around three elements - the extension of the Losec line, the lifting of technical and legal barriers and the introduction of a new-generation product -  whose object is to minimize erosion of its sales and to enable it to deal with competition from generic products, is part of the normal competitive process, provided that the conduct envisaged does not depart from practices based on competition on the merits, which is such as to benefit consumers.

The fact that the deregistrations of the marketing authorizations in dispute stem from a decentralized decision has no effect on the classification as an abuse of dominant position where it is not necessary, in order that conduct can be classified as an abuse, that it be implemented as a result of a strategy prepared at the management level of the group, but it is sufficient that it be carried out by one of the companies in the group.

In the absence of grounds relating to the legitimate interests of an undertaking engaged in competition on the merits or in the absence of objective justification, an undertaking in a dominant position cannot use regulatory procedures with the sole aim of preventing or making more difficult the entry of competitors on the market.

The undertaking in a dominant position which, as it no longer has the exclusive right to make use of the results of its pharmacological and toxicological tests and clinical trials under Directive No 65/65, decides without objective justification (particularly as regards public health) to deregister its marketing authorizations to prevent future applicants for marketing authorizations from making use of the abridged procedure provided for by the Directive to delay the market entry of generic products and to prevent parallel imports, adopts conduct which is not based on the legitimate protection of an investment which come within the scope of competition on the merits.

The acquisition, by means of conduct liable to mislead the public authorities, of an exclusive right to which an undertaking in a dominant position is not entitled, or to which it is entitled for a shorter period, constitutes a practice falling outside the scope of competition on the merits which may be particularly restrictive of competition.

The existence of specific remedies which make it possible to rectify, or even annul, unlawfully granted patents cannot justify the competition rules - in particular the prohibition on abuse of dominant position - being applied only where an anticompetitive effect is demonstrated.

The fact that certain public authorities have not let themselves be misled, or that competitors have obtained, subsequent to the unlawful grant of the exclusive rights, the revocation of those rights, is not sufficient grounds to consider that there is no abuse, where the question whether behavior which is objectively of such a nature as to restrict competition is abusive in nature cannot depend on the contingencies of the reactions of third parties.

By reason of the objective nature of the concept of abuse, the misleading nature of representations made to the public authorities for the purposes of improperly obtaining exclusive rights must be assessed on the basis of objective factors and proof of the deliberate nature of the conduct and of the bad faith of the undertaking in a dominant position is not required.

The existence of solid protection by means of intellectual property rights is a relevant factor of a dominant position without necessarily excluding all competition on the market.

The fact that the undertaking in question was able to maintain particularly high market shares whilst charging significantly higher prices, without the various players in the pharmaceutical market - i.e. patients, prescribing doctors, national social security systems and its competitors - being able to challenge it, constitutes evidence of a dominant position, even if that result was made possible or favored by social security systems.

The fact that innovation is an essential parameter of competition in the pharmaceutical sector does not call in question the relevance that must be attached to the very high market share of the undertaking in question, whose privileged position stems precisely from an innovative breakthrough by it, which enabled it to be the first mover on the market as a result of marketing of the first PPI.

GC, 6th chamber, extended composition, July 1, 2010, No T-321/05

Le franchiseur n'est pas tenu de délivrer à la caution de la société franchisée l'information précontractuelle prévue par l'article L. 330-3 du Code de commerce.

CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 5, 1 juillet 2010, n° 10-07894

L'opération en cause ne peut faire l'objet du contrôle des concentrations, dès lors que le chiffre d'affaires de l'actionnaire minoritaire doit être exclu du calcul du chiffre d'affaires des entreprises concernées - sa participation au capital de la cible ne suffisant pas à lui conférer une influence déterminante - et que les chiffres d'affaires de l'actionnaire majoritaire et de la cible ne dépassent pas les seuils prévus à l'article L. 430-2 du Code de commerce.

L'opération en cause n'est pas contrôlable dans la mesure où l'entreprise commune restera trop dépendante de ses sociétés mères dans son fonctionnement pour pouvoir être considérée comme une entreprise de plein exercice.

Au conseil de la société Le Carbone Lorraine relative à une montée dans le capital de la société Boostec

ADLC, 1 juillet 2010, n° 10-DCC-69

Examining a tax scheme in the light of the rules on State aid does not demand an assessment of the subjective choices that might have been made by the beneficiaries in the absence of such a scheme but requires the determination of whether it entails, from an objective standpoint, an economic advantage by reference to the tax provisions from which it derogates.

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-335/08

An aid measure may be considered granted, and therefore subject to notification, even if it has not yet been paid out to the recipient.

The preferential electricity tariff granted by the legislature until a specific date to a former self-producer as compensation for the transfer of its nationalized hydroelectric plant, is, after that date, a new aid subject to notification insofar as it has been granted for a period proportional to the remaining duration of the expropriated concession.

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-62/08

The preferential electricity tariff granted by the legislature to a former self-producer until a specific date as compensation for the transfer of its nationalised hydroelectric plant, is State aid after that date.

GC, 5th chamber, July 1, 2010, No T-53/08

Although an undertaking's express or implicit acknowledgement of matters of fact or of law during the administrative procedure - in this case not challenging  its role as the company responsible for the actions of a group of companies - may constitute additional evidence when determining whether a court action is well founded, it cannot restrict the actual exercise of its right to bring proceedings under Article 263(4) TFEU.

The possibility of varying majorities within a group of companies does not exclude the existence of a single economic unit.

Several companies held by the members of the same family, which are subject to single management and direction under a family agreement and where their turnover has been disclosed as a whole as part of the infringement, constitute an economic unit.

Failure to disclose an exculpatory document to an undertaking in the course of an administrative procedure does not constitute a breach of its rights of defense if it cannot establish that the non-disclosure was able to influence, to its detriment, the course of the procedure and the content of the final decision.

CJEU, 2nd chamber, July 1, 2010, No C-407/08 P

National legislation relating to the possible grant of an exemption in relation to the opening times of a pharmacy located in a specific area of the municipality of Rome, cannot, in itself or by its application, affect trade between Member States.

CJEU, 1st chamber, July 1, 2010, No C-393/08

La législation fiscale qui soumet les revenus de placements et d'investissements effectués dans un autre État membre à une taxe communale additionnelle à laquelle ne sont pas soumis ceux provenant des placements et des investissements effectués sur le territoire national, constitue en soi un traitement fiscal défavorable contraire à la libre circulation des capitaux.

Court decisions rendered in 2010 - Page 34