Cass. com., 23 février 1988, n° 86-15.594

Cass. soc., 18 février 1988, n° 85-40.213

L'acquéreur d'une chose viciée étant libre de choisir entre les options que lui offre l'article 1644 du Code civil, le juge ne saurait substituer à l'action rédhibitoire engagée une action estimatoire, même si le vice ne présente pas une gravité suffisante pour justifier une telle sanction.

Cass. 3e civ., 17 février 1988, n° 86-15.031

Cass. 2e civ., 17 février 1988, n° 86-12.239

Cass. 2e civ., 17 février 1988, n° 86-17.098

Cass. com., 16 février 1988, n° 86-18.309

Cass. crim., 16 février 1988, n° 87-84.107

L'existence d'une exclusivité de distribution peut être déduite, à défaut de stipulation contractuelle, de la durée des relations commerciales et du fait que le fournisseur conseille à ses clients potentiels de s'adresser au distributeur en cause qui, dans les faits, est le seul vendeur auquel il a confié la commercialisation de ses produits dans un secteur déterminé.

Cass. com., 16 février 1988, n° 86-16.207

Le fournisseur, à qui incombe la charge de la preuve, doit prouver la licéité de son réseau de distribution sélective avant d'agir en concurrence déloyale.

Le fournisseur doit prouver la licéité de son réseau de distribution sélective avant d'agir en concurrence déloyale.

Cass. com., 16 février 1988, n° 86-11.972

Cass. com., 16 février 1988, n° 86-19.645

Cass. 1re civ., 16 février 1988, n° 86-11.295

Cass. 3e civ., 10 février 1988, n° 86-17.178

Cass. 3e civ., 10 février 1988, n° 86-18.453

Cass. 2e civ., 10 février 1988, n° 86-17.742

In principle, an employee cannot waive the protection established by the directive relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, the provisions of which are mandatory even where the new working conditions are globally more favorable, unless the alteration of those conditions is permitted by the national law in cases other than the transfer of an undertaking.

The directive relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings applies even in the absence of transfer of ownership from the transferor to the transferee, and where, upon the termination of a lease, the owner of the undertaking, to which it has been transferred, leases it to a new lessee who carries on the business without interruption with the staff who had been given notice on the expiry of the initial lease.

CJEC, 3rd chamber, February 10, 1988, No 324-86

Un travailleur ne peut en principe renoncer à la protection organisée par la directive sur le maintien des droits des travailleurs en cas de transfert d'entreprise, dont les dispositions sont impératives, même lorsque les nouvelles conditions de travail sont globalement plus favorables, à moins que la modification de ces conditions soit permise par le droit national en dehors de l'hypothèse d'un transfert d'entreprise. 

La directive sur le maintien des droits des travailleurs en cas de transfert d'entreprise s'applique même en l'absence de transfert de propriété du cédant au cessionnaire, comme dans l'hypothèse où, au terme d'un contrat de location-gérance, le propriétaire de l'entreprise auquel cette dernière a été rétrocédée, donne celle-ci en location à un nouveau gérant qui en poursuit l'exploitation sans interruption avec le personnel licencié à l'expiration du premier contrat.

CJCE, 3e ch., 10 février 1988, n° 324-86

CA Paris, 1re ch. A, 10 février 1988, n° 86-13271

Cass. 2e civ., 10 février 1988, n° 86-16.491

Cass. com., 9 février 1988, n° 86-16.603

Le concédant qui installe un nouveau concessionnaire à proximité des locaux d'un autre concessionnaire, même en dehors de sa zone d'exclusivité, n'exécute pas le contrat de bonne foi.

La décision du fournisseur d'installer un distributeur à proximité d'un autre membre du réseau justifie l'octroi de dommages et intérêts, mais ne constitue pas une faute suffisamment grave pour justifier la résolution judiciaire du contrat.

CA Paris, 5e ch. A, 9 février 1988, n° 11375

Cass. 1re civ., 9 février 1988, n° 86-11.557

Cass. 1re civ., 9 février 1988, n° 86-13.699

Cass. crim., 9 février 1988, n° 87-82.709

CA Aix-en-Provence, 5e ch. corr., 8 février 1988, n° 1988-126

Cass. crim., 8 février 1988, n° 86-96.707

Cass. soc., 4 février 1988, n° 85-42.229

The establishment of a common system of quality standards by a common organization of the market prevents Members States from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it even where their additional requirements concern only domestic products.

CJEC, February 4, 1988, No 255-86

Since Article 157 TFEU is directly applicable, it is for the national court, within the limits of its discretion under national law, to give, where possible, an interpretation which accords with the requirements of the applicable EU law when interpreting and applying domestic law and, to the extent that this is not possible, to hold such domestic law inapplicable.

It is for the national court, within the limits of its discretion under national law, when interpreting and applying domestic law, to give to it, where possible an interpretation which accords with the requirements of the applicable EU law and, to the extent that this is not possible, to hold such domestic law inapplicable.

Article 157 TFEU, which establishes a principle of equal pay for men and women for equal work must be regarded as having a direct effect, such that the national courts must interpret domestic law in the light of that provision and, to the extent that a compliant interpretation is not possible, to hold such domestic rules inapplicable.

CJEC, February 4, 1988, No 157-86

In order to ascertain whether the two judgments are irreconcilable within the meaning of Article 45(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (former Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001), an examination of whether they entail legal consequences that are mutually exclusive is required.

The legal remedies available under national law regarding execution must be precluded when an appeal against the execution of a foreign judgment for which an enforcement order has been issued is lodged by the same person who could have appealed against the enforcement order and is based on an argument which could have been raised in such an appeal, insofar as to challenge the execution would be tantamount to again calling into question the enforcement order after the expiry of the strict time-limit laid down by Article 43(5) of Regulation No 44/2001, and would render that provision ineffective  [Note: now Regulation No 1215/2012 which abolishes  exequatur, provides that foreign judgments are directly enforceable; however, enforcement in the Member State addressed may be contested by the person against whom enforcement is sought (Art. 46, 49 and 50)].

In view of the mandatory nature of the time-limit of appeal against the enforcement decision, it is for the court in which enforcement is sought to dismiss of its own motion as inadmissible an appeal lodged pursuant to national law when that appeal has the effect of circumventing that time-limit [Note: now, in application of Regulation No 1215/2012, a judgment is directly enforceable in the Member State addressed and there is now only one procedure for refusal of enforcement, which is governed by the law of the Member State addressed].

The Brussels I Regulation merely regulates the procedure for obtaining an order for the enforcement of foreign enforceable instruments and does not deal with execution itself, which continues to be governed by the domestic law of the court in which execution is sought  [Note: Regulation No 1215/2012 which abolishes exequatur, now provides that judgments rendered in one Member State are enforceable in the other Member States (Art. 39), with the procedure for enforcement of judgments rendered in another Member State now governed by the law of the Member State addressed (Art. 41)].

A foreign judgment whose enforcement has been ordered in a Member State pursuant to Article 38 of the Brussels I Regulation and which remains enforceable in the State in which it was given must not continue to be enforced in the State where enforcement is sought when, under the law of the latter State, it ceased to be enforceable for reasons which lie outside the scope of the regulation [Note: now under Article 39 of Regulation No 1215/2012, a judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State is enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required].

Recognition has the result of conferring on judgments the authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given.

A foreign judgment for which an enforcement order has been issued is executed in accordance with the procedural rules of the domestic law of the court in which execution is sought, including those on legal remedies, unless they lead to impair the effectiveness of the scheme of the recast Brussels I Regulation.

Decisions given in two Member States in respect of the same parties, the one based on the existence of a matrimonial relationship and the resulting conjugal obligation, the other pronouncing the divorce, are irreconcilable within the meaning of Article 45(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (former Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001).

The issue whether a foreign judgment is compatible with a national judgment must be resolved under Article 45(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (former Article 34(3) of Regulation No 44/2001], which deals with cases in which the foreign judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the State where enforcement is sought, and not under paragraph 1(a) of the same article (formerly Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001), relating to the public-policy clause, which can only operate in exceptional cases.

Décisions de justice rendues en 1988 - Page 20