Interim measure in anticompetitive practices proceedings: A brief analysis of French judicial case law

This paper adresses the question of interim measures proceedings in French courts. Litigation data indicate that interim measures provide the victims of cartels and abuse of dominance an interesting option to seek relief. In the cases reported, jurisdictions grant the plaintiffs injunctions to cease patently illegal conduct (“trouble manifestement illicite”) or injunctions to communicate evidence to prepare private actions (“mesures d’instructions in futurum”). Regarding these successes, it can be assumed that the strategic interest of interim measures proceedings has been underrated. In addition, if the outbreak of the European private enforcement were to be confirmed, it is likely that the attraction of interim measures grow stronger as the number of private actions increases.

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. Litigation on the urgency of anti-competitive practices comes in various forms. It may be brought before the competition authorities [1], before the courts of the Union [2]or before national courts (judicial or administrative) [3]. It may also concern the existence of an anti-competitive practice or the validity of an order for inspection and seizure issued by a judge of freedoms and detention [4]. The brief analysis proposed here will be devoted to the so-called "ordinary law" summary proceedings of the French [5]civil and commercial courts. At first glance, this choice might be surprising, since the judge in charge of summary proceedings - the "judge 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.