Effective remedy: The First President of the Paris Court of Appeal considers that the presumptions of anti-competitive practices remaining in the file after the invalidation of the visit and seizure operations carried out at the premises of a television manufacturer justify those carried out at the plaintiff’s premises and leads to new questions on the issue of the right to an effective remedy in the case of household appliances (Whirpool)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Due to its density, the pdf version of this commentary is available HERE. Pursuant to Article L. 450-5 of the French Commercial Code, the DGCCRF had forwarded several indications to the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence) in the sector of the manufacture and marketing of household appliances, revealing in particular potential price concertations between the main French manufacturers of household appliances. The investigation was taken over by the Authority. Following authorization from the Bobigny liberty and custody judge on October 9, 2013, visits and seizures were carried out at the premises of several companies. Subsequently, and