Cass. 3e civ., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-21.724

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-17.741

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-20.984

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-10.261

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-30.158

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-17.657

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-21.871

La présence de sucre d'une densité plus ou moins importante ne saurait rendre une confiserie impropre à la consommation, ni lui conférer un défaut de sécurité au sens de l'article [1245-3, ancien article 1386-4] du Code civil.  

CA Toulouse, 3e ch. sect. 1, 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-00234

CA Metz, 1re ch., 17 septembre 2013, n° 10-02436

Il n'y a pas lieu d'ordonner la poursuite des relations commerciales en référé lorsque le juge du fond a, dans l'exercice de son pouvoir souverain d'appréciation, estimé la rupture fondée.

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-20.147

Le débauchage massif, simultané et planifié de 27 des 30 membres de l'équipe en charge de l'activité d'actuariat-conseil d'une société concurrente, constituée de salariés hautement qualifiés et très spécialisés parmi lesquels les deux associés la dirigeant, et l'appropriation de la clientèle et du chiffre d'affaires correspondant, caractérisent des manuvres déloyales ayant eu pour objet et pour effet la désorganisation complète et durable du département d'actuariat de cette entreprise.

Le transfert de clientèle et de chiffre d'affaires résultant du débauchage de 90 % des effectifs d'un département entier d'une société concurrente, en vue de s'approprier, en quelques mois l'activité d'actuariat-conseil de cette dernière, générée par le savoir-faire et l'expérience d'une équipe complète, homogène et formée à laquelle la clientèle était attachée, pour s'implanter en France à moindre frais, caractérise un comportement parasitaire.

CA Versailles, 12e ch., 17 septembre 2013, n° 11-06203

Une clause de reconduction tacite incluse dans un contrat de location d'espace publicitaire entre commerçants ne crée pas de déséquilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties lorsque la faculté de mettre un terme au contrat appartient de manière égale à chacune d'elles.

CA Montpellier, 2e ch., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-05690

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-23.736

CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 8, 17 septembre 2013, n° 12/14712

CA Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 8, 17 septembre 2013, n° 12/02203

Cass. 3e civ., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-18.910

Cass. 3e civ., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-20.584

Cass. com., 17 septembre 2013, n° 12-18.293

CJEU, 8th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-482/07

GC, 4th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-386/10

An undertaking can be sanctioned for exchanging information on price increases even if it has not disclosed its own forecasts, since the mere fact of receiving sensitive commercial information is unlawful.

The Commission makes an error of assessment when it justifies the coefficient applied for the deterrent effect of the fine by the fact that the undertaking is alleged to have participated in a single infringement covering three product subgroups and six territories, whereas it found that the undertaking in question participated in only two subgroups and one territory.

The fact that the Commission should have applied to the other in the cartel participants a higher multiplier for deterrence than that of the applicant does not imply that the Court is required, by virtue of its unlimited jurisdiction, to reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

GC, 4th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-376/10

GC, September 16, 2013, No T-368/10

GC, September 16, 2013, No T-375/10

GC, September 16, 2013, No T-495/07

GC, 8th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-325/10

The presumption of imputability of the offending conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company may be based exclusively on shareholding links.

The transmission to the parent company of monthly reports on the subsidiary's financial results containing information relating to its turnover, cash flow, gross profit, profit before tax, interest, depreciation, amortization and provisions, the total number of units sold as well as monthly price trends, and the provision of information relating to the preparation of its budget, constitute solid evidence of the effective exercise of a decisive influence.



Although the existence of management in common between a parent company and its subsidiary is an indication of the effective exercise of decisive influence, it cannot be inferred from the absence of such common management that the subsidiary acts autonomously in the market.

The information provided by the parent company to demonstrate the organizational autonomy of its subsidiary is insufficient to rebut the presumption of exercising decisive influence when the subsidiary has no commercial autonomy.

The fact that the parent company was not the Commission's sole contact during the administrative or litigation proceedings is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of exercise of decisive influence.

The Commission is not required to consider the poor financial health of a sector as a mitigating circumstance, since most cartels emerge in times of crisis. 

The information, even if general, provided by one undertaking has significant added value compared with the accurate and detailed data previously provided by another but contested by several other undertakings, since it was of objective use in characterizing the infringement. 

No fine reduction is granted to an undertaking in respect of information relating to a period during which no infringement was found by the Commission.

An undertaking contesting the information submitted to the Commission by another leniency applicant does not show a failure to demonstrate a genuine spirit of cooperation, since its sole aim is to demonstrate that the information gathered is insufficient to establish the infringement and that the information it itself has provided is of significant added value. 

GC, 4th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-412/10

CA Douai, 1re ch. sect. 1, 16 septembre 2013, n° 12-06358

CA Douai, 1re ch. sect. 1, 16 septembre 2013, n° 13-01308

The fact that the Commission should have applied a higher multiplier to the other members of the cartel than the applicant in respect of the gravity of the infringement does not mean that the General Court, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction, is required to reduce the amount of the fine imposed on that undertaking.

The application of a mulitplier of 15% for the gravity of the infringement to an undertaking which has not particpated in all aspects of the cartel does not violate the principle of proportionality where the agreement is on prices.

The Commission has made an error of assessment where it justifies the application of multipliers for the gravity of the infringement on the ground that the undertaking had participated in a single infringement relating to three product sub-groups and covering six Member States where it had found that the undertaking in question had been involved in an infringement relating to only two sub-groups and one territory.

The exchange of information on previous price increases is anticompetitive where it puts each competitor in a position to monitor directly the implementation of the price increases which had previously been announced.

The announcement by an undertaking in meetings between competitors of its intention not to implement price increases does not alter the fact that discussions about such increases took place and does not constitute a distancing from the cartel insofar as its attendance at the meetings alone allowed it to benefit from information exchanged by the other particpants. 

There is a price fixing agreement even if the specific features of the restriction envisaged are still under negotiation where at meetings a number of competing undertakings have agreed on the very principle of a future restriction of competition.

When examining whether the unlawful practices at issue constituted several infringements or a single infringement, the Commission must verify, not whether the practices at issue concerned products belonging to the same market, but whether the undertakings themselves considered those practices to be part of an overall plan knowingly implemented by them with a view to achieving a single anticompetitive objective.

For the purposes of applying Article 101(1) TFEU, there is an obligation on the Commission to define the market in a decision applying Article 101(1) TFEU only where it is necessary to determine whether the practice at issue is liable to affect trade between Member States and has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market.

A single infringement can concern several products belonging to distinct product markets.

CJEU, 4th chamber, September 16, 2013, No T-396/10

A fact of which the General Court cannot take account when reviewing legality because the Commission did not refer to it in its decision, can be taken into consideration  in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to adjust the amount of the fine.

The General Court must confine itself to a partial annulment of the contested decision where an undertaking is held liable for a single and continuous infringement, if certain sufficiently severable aspects of the infringement cannot be attributed to it.

In respect of a single and continuous infringement, the fact that evidence of the existence of an infringement was not adduced for certain specific periods does not preclude the infringement from being regarded as having been established during a more extensive overall period, provided that such a finding is based on objective and consistent indicia.

The various concurring and self-incriminating statements made by a leniency applicant can, where they are corroborated by contemporaneous documents, establish the participation of an undertaking in a market-sharing agreement.

Where the contemporaneous documents retained by the Commision do not establish the participation of an undertaking in certain aspects of the single infringement, its liability cannot be found  if the Commission fails to show that the undertaking  was aware of that conduct or if it could not have been unaware of the existence thereof. 

In the absence of any coercive measure by the Commission, statements which run counter to the interests of the declarant must therefore be regarded as particularly reliable evidence.

Décisions de justice rendues en 2013 - Page 30