CASE COMMENTS : ANTICOMPETITIVE AGREEMENT - AGREEMENTS – FINING GUIDELINES – SETTING OF FINANCIAL PENALTIESENTENTES : COMMUNIQUE SANCTIONS – AMENDES

Fining guidelines : The Paris Court of appeal confirms the validity of the Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Method Relating to the Setting of Financial Penalties but states that the compliance of penalties imposed with the provisions of the Commerce Code is to be controlled in each case (Nestlé Purina Petcare France, Nestlé, Royal Canin, Mars Incorporated, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Colgate-Palmolive company)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. In a decision of 20 March 2012, the Competition Authority sanctioned several manufacturers of dry dog and cat food to the tune of €35.3 million for restricting competition at the wholesale distribution stage of their products and, in the case of some of them, for imposing resale price maintenance and unjustified territorial restrictions (see the present column Concurrences No. 2-2012, p. 61). The main interest of the ruling handed down by the Paris Court of Appeal on the appeals of the three companies concerned lies in the examination of the arguments relating to the determination of sanctions. While the Court of Appeal has already had to deal with appeals

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

Nathalie Jalabert-Doury, Fining guidelines : The Paris Court of appeal confirms the validity of the Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Method Relating to the Setting of Financial Penalties but states that the compliance of penalties imposed with the provisions of the Commerce Code is to be controlled in each case (Nestlé Purina Petcare France, Nestlé, Royal Canin, Mars Incorporated, Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Colgate-Palmolive company), 10 October 2013, Concurrences N° 1-2014, Art. N° 62832, pp. 62-63

Visites 307

All reviews