ARTICLES : EUROPEAN UNION - FRANCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - PRINCIPLE OF LOYALTY

Uncertain future of the loyalty principle in the appraisal of evidence in anti‐competitive practices trials

In a judgment of the 7th of January 2011, the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) adopted a broad approach of the loyalty principle when applied to the administration of evidence in anti‐competitive practices trials before the French National Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence). In particular, this approach requires the competition authority and French courts to declare inadmissible surreptitious recording. However, by a judgment of 8 September 2016, the Court of First Instance adopted a contrary position with regard to procedures before the European Commission. This new European framework weakens the French jurisprudence.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. French case law on the admissibility of unfair evidence. French case law on the admissibility of unfair evidence is based on a seemingly simple distinction - and only [1] seemingly simple - which can be very roughly summarized as follows: unfair evidence is not admissible in most civil cases but it is admissible in criminal cases, when the disloyalty is the act of a private person and not of a public [2] authority. This distinction, which regularly requires clarification by the Court of Cassation [3], is based on a "proportionality relationship between the disturbance caused by the search for the truth and the importance of the principles at issue in

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

  • Université Caen Normandie

Quotation

Rafael P. Amaro, Uncertain future of the loyalty principle in the appraisal of evidence in anti‐competitive practices trials, February 2017, Concurrences N° 1-2017, Art. N° 83405, pp. 73-80

Visites 838

All reviews