CASE COMMENTS : MERGER CONTROL - ABSENCE OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE L. 430-3 OF THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL CODE - LIMITATION PERIOD (5 YEARS) - CALCULATION OF THE PERIOD - PERMANENT BREACH OF THE LAW- APPLICATION OF ARTICLE L. 430-8 OF THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL CODE - IMPUTABILITY OF THE BREACH - MOTHER COMPANY OF THE ACQUIRING COMPANY - CALCULATION OF THE FINE - TURNOVER OF THE GROUP - DISTRIBUTION/RETAIL

Absence of prior notification - Limitation period: The French Competition Authority fines a group of companies which failed to notify its operation before acquiring (three) French companies, in violation of article L. 430-3 of the French Commercial Code (Colruyt)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Aut. conc. dec. no. 12-D-12 of 11 May 2012 relating to the situation of the Colruyt Group with regard to I of Article L. 430-8 of the Commercial Code The cases of application of Article L. 430-8 of the Commercial Code are not legion (for the equivalent at the European level, see Commission Decision of 18 February 1998, Case IV/M.920, Samsung/AST). This is an understatement. It is therefore perhaps useful to recall the text of this article, at least of its paragraph I, which is the only one at issue in this case: "I.-If a concentration has been implemented without being notified, the Competition Authority shall require the parties to notify the operation

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.