CASE COMMENTS : RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE – ACTION AT LAW – MINISTER OF THE ECONOMY – NON-ADMISSIBILITY – NO INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS

Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Créteil, by two judgments of the same day, declares inadmissible an action for termination introduced by the Minister of the Economy who has not justified information given to the contracting parties of the proceedings for nullity of the contracts initially incurred under the significant imbalance (Minister of the Economy/Système U and Minister of the Economy/GALEC)

On le sait, la procédure autonome de l’article L 442-6 du Code de commerce suscite toujours un débat important et les assignations délivrées par le Ministre contre les distributeurs déclenchent une armada de contestations. Si certaines juridictions accueillent les demandes (voir T. com. Lille, 6 janvier 2010, Concurrences, n°2-2010, p. 99, obs. M. Chagny ; T. com. Meaux, 6 décembre 2011, Concurrences, cette chronique, supra, obs. M. Chagny ; T. com. Paris, 22 novembre 2011, Concurrences, cette chronique, infra,,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Jean-Louis Fourgoux, Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Créteil, by two judgments of the same day, declares inadmissible an action for termination introduced by the Minister of the Economy who has not justified information given to the contracting parties of the proceedings for nullity of the contracts initially incurred under the significant imbalance (Minister of the Economy/Système U and Minister of the Economy/GALEC), 15 February 2012, Concurrences Review N° 1-2012, Art. N° 42378, pp. 131-132

Visites 427

All reviews