CASSE COMMENTS: RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES – PRIMACY – NOTICE – INDEMNISATION – LIMITS

Sudden termination: The French Supreme Court rules both on conflict between European Union law and national law on the issue of prior notice to grant in case of sudden termination of established business practices and on the indemnisation issue of the sudden termination (BMW / Taurisson)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. The case, which was the subject of the Court of Cassation's ruling of 5 July 2016, involved Société Taurisson, BMW's dealer, against whom the latter had notified its intention not to renew the contract, in compliance with the six-month notice period provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 then applicable. Taurisson had then sued its partner for abrupt termination of established commercial relations. After the Limoges Court of Appeal's first cassation of the judgment of the Limoges Court of Appeal condemning BMW for having severed relations without notice, the case returned to the Limoges Court, otherwise composed, which once again condemned BMW, this

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

Mary-Claude Mitchell, Sudden termination: The French Supreme Court rules both on conflict between European Union law and national law on the issue of prior notice to grant in case of sudden termination of established business practices and on the indemnisation issue of the sudden termination (BMW / Taurisson), 5 July 2016, Concurrences Nº 4-2016, Art. N° 82158, pp. 122-123

Visites 146

All reviews