CASE COMMENTS: UNFAIR COMMERCIAL PRACTICES – RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – SUBMISSION ATTEMPT – COMPELLING BEHAVIOUR

Compelling behaviour: The French Supreme Court rules that a contract could be criticized under the prohibition of significant imbalance only if the perpetrator of the practice has constrained the other party (Netasq-ECONOCOM)

La Cour de cassation s’est prononcée, dans un dossier ne portant pas sur la grande distribution, sur l’article L 442-6 I 2° qui vise le fait “de soumettre ou de tenter de soumettre un partenaire commercial à des obligations créant un déséquilibre significatif dans les droits et obligations des parties” et en précise les contours. Ce texte applicable à n’importe quel contrat entre un producteur, commerçant, industriel ou personne immatriculée au répertoire des métiers et un partenaire commercial permet de vérifier si une obligation, y compris d’ordre tarifaire, est déséquilibrée (Cass. com., 25 janv. 2017, Le Galec c/ Ministre chargé de l’Économie, n° 15-23547, Concurrences n°

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, Compelling behaviour: The French Supreme Court rules that a contract could be criticized under the prohibition of significant imbalance only if the perpetrator of the practice has constrained the other party (Netasq-ECONOCOM), 8 June 2017, Concurrences Review N° 4-2017, Art. N° 85195, pp. 115-116

Visites 25

All reviews