CASE COMMENTS : UNILATERAL PRACTICES - PRODUCT MARKET - PREDATORY PRICING - SERVICES OF GENERAL ECONOMIC INTEREST

Predatory pricing: The Court of Cassation quashes a judgement by the Paris Court of appeals for fundamental breaches of judge’s duties, refusal to define a product market and defective reasoning and emphasises that neither product market definition nor appraisal of predatory pricing call for a specific test in cases involving services of general economic interest (Vedettes inter-îles vendéennes II)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. A few issues ago, in the same column, we thought that the case of the inter-island stars from the Vendée had found its epilogue before the Paris [1]Court of Appeal. Fortunately, we were wrong: the fact that the company at the origin of the complaint was in receivership did not finally prevent the case from returning to the Commercial Chamber, its liquidator having lodged an appeal in cassation. Perhaps it is not necessary to remind the reader of this column of the facts behind this case. Suffice it to recall the issues that were at stake in this litigation. On the first appeal, the key issue was the method of assessing predatory pricing. In its original

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

  • Catholic University of Louvain

Quotation

Anne-Lise Sibony, Predatory pricing: The Court of Cassation quashes a judgement by the Paris Court of appeals for fundamental breaches of judge’s duties, refusal to define a product market and defective reasoning and emphasises that neither product market definition nor appraisal of predatory pricing call for a specific test in cases involving services of general economic interest (Vedettes inter-îles vendéennes II), 13 July 2010, Concurrences N° 4-2010, Art. N° 33191, pp. 126-128

Visites 1140

All reviews