ALERTS: ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES – CONCERTED PRACTICES – ANTICOMPETITIVE OBJECT / EFFECT – SETTLEMENT

Anticompetitive object: The Paris Court of Appeal refuses to cancel a transaction on the basis of competition law because the said act does not have an anticompetitive object or effect (Vasco)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Usually, the parties to a transaction submit their application for annulment of the act on the basis of the policy of defects of consent (Civil Code, arts. 1130 et seq.), or even on the absence of reciprocal concessions (see Civ. 1, 9 July 2003, No. 01-11963). To claim the nullity of a transaction by taking the route of competition law, as in the case reported in the decision under comment, is more original. The facts. The case involves two subsidiaries of the same group, one French and the other Belgian (hereinafter the Vasco companies), and a French company (hereinafter the Acova company), all of which are active in the marketing of radiators. A dispute

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

  • University of Toulouse

Quotation

Lucas Bettoni, Anticompetitive object: The Paris Court of Appeal refuses to cancel a transaction on the basis of competition law because the said act does not have an anticompetitive object or effect (Vasco), 19 May 2020, Concurrences N° 3-2020, Art. N° 96562, www.concurrences.com

Visites 30

All reviews