CASE COMMENTS: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE – CIVIL ACTION – MINISTER REQUEST – CIVIL FINE

Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Lille imposes a fine on a retailer because of the significant imbalance of two provisions of its annual agreement with its suppliers (Eurauchan)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. This is the second decision handed down by the Lille Commercial Court as part of the series of writs issued by the Minister of the Economy in September 2009 against nine general and specialized mass retail chains. More than a year and a half after its Castorama decision of January 6, 2010, the Lille Commercial Court is therefore once again ruling on the issue of significant imbalance. No supplier was a party to the action, the Minister of the Economy acting alone in the context of his autonomous right of action for the defence of economic public order. Eurauchan, relying on the decision of the Constitutional Council of 13 May 2011, contested the lack of

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

Quotation

Mireille Dany, Significant imbalance: The Commercial Court of Lille imposes a fine on a retailer because of the significant imbalance of two provisions of its annual agreement with its suppliers (Eurauchan), 7 September 2011, Concurrences N° 4-2011, Art. N° 39970, pp. 125-126

Visites 918

All reviews