CASE COMMENT : LIMITATION PERIOD - PERIODS - INSTRUCTION

Prescription period : The Court of Appeal of Paris continues its restrictive reading of Article L. 462-7 of the Commercial Code stating that the response of a company involved in a written request for information from the rapporteur of the Council does not constitute acts tending to the investigation, detection or punishment facts older than three (5) years (UNIDOC)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. On 4 July 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal handed down three judgements on appeal against decisions of the Competition Council, respectively in the horizontal road signage cases in the Picardie and Nord-Pas de Calais (n° 05-D-67), practices implemented by France Telecom in the broadband Internet sector (No. 05-D-59) and the serving the Lérins islands (n° 05-D-60). Of these three judgments, the first is the one that will be particularly noteworthy attention, in that the Paris Court of Appeal has upheld it, in a rather unexpectedly, at the request of one of the undertakings sanctioned by the Council of the acquisition of the statute of limitations in its

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

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, Prescription period : The Court of Appeal of Paris continues its restrictive reading of Article L. 462-7 of the Commercial Code stating that the response of a company involved in a written request for information from the rapporteur of the Council does not constitute acts tending to the investigation, detection or punishment facts older than three (5) years (UNIDOC), 4 July 2006, Concurrences N° 4-2006, Art. N° 55732, www.concurrences.com

Visites 391

All reviews