Cour de cassation, France 2004 – 2007 Recent developments in competition case- law

1. Cour de cassation, France 2004 – 2007 Recentdevelopments in competition case-law ACLE, Amsterdam, 11 April 2008 Jacqueline Riffault-Silk Judge, Commercial Chamber

2. IntroductionMain features of French structures

3. Continuity : the dividebetweenjudicial and administrative competence, the organisation of the proceedings, the rights of the defence Part One : Questions of procedure, continuity and openness

4. Part 2 : Substantive Law, Under the Rationale of Economics * Determining the relevant market * Qualifying the practices * Defining the responsibleentity * Assessing the sanctions

5. Questions of procedure (1) 1 – Division of the competencebetween administrative courts and the judiciary NCA controls the activities of public bodies when of economic nature (production, distribution, services), unlessexercisedwith State powers or in the generalinterest (Trib. Conflits, 18 Oct. 1999, Paris Airports v. TAT) (Com. 19 Apr 2005, Desoeuvre, non detachableacts) (Com. 6 Feb 2007, The Oliver TreeCompany), (Com. 14 March 2006, PrivilegCompany & al, detachableacts)

6. Questions of procedure (2) 2 – Prescription (time limitations) and « saisine in rem » Art. L 462-7 com : time limitations of 3 yearsnow 5 years (Ord. 4 Nov 2004) Interruptive effect on all interested parties of appeals made by any of themagainstsearch and visitdecisions Com. 7 March 2006, EstuaryMotorway construction

7. Questions of procedure (3) 3 – Rights of the Defence Guarantiesmodelled on criminalprocedures (Art. 6 ECHR, Art. 14 UN Pact for Civil Rights, French Constitutional Council, 30 Dec. 1987) Com. 23 June 2004, « Banks » case Com. 22 Feb 2005, SocarelCy & al. Com. 13 July 2004, Normandy Bridge construction Com. 29 June 2007, SFR & al.

8. Questions of procedure (4) 4 – Appeals Art. 561 CPC gives full jurisdiction to the CA →in comp. matters, CA reviews the case on the facts and on the law →whenquashing an NCA decision, it must retake the case. Com. 30 May 2000, Canal Plus, Com. 4 Dec 2001, France Telecom Com. 27 Sept 2005, Beton Travaux Cy (cassation) Com. 31 Jan 2006, Colas Mediterranee (cassation)

9. Questions of procedure (5) 5 – Cooperation v/ proceduralautonomy Reg. 1/2003, art. 16 : the national courts may suspend the proceedingswhen the same case ispendingbefore the Commission Com. 17 Jan 2006,Speav/ Peugeot SA Interimmeasures (L.464-1 com): whatrules to beappliedwhen art. 81 & 82 EC are applicable ? ECJ 17/1/90, Camera care;TPICE 24/1/92, La Cinq; a. 8 Reg.1/03 Com. 14 Dec 2004, Pharma Lab; 8 Nov 2005, Neuf Telecom:cass Com. 28 Jan 2005, Orange Caraïbes (reasonablepresumption) …but anotherpossibility lies in negotiatedprocedures (NMPP)

10. Questions of procedure (6) 6 – Negotiatedprocedures Specificity of the transaction procedure, whichdiffersfrom the civil one (art. 2044 civ). → NCA not bound by the proposal of the Rapporteur general → no cumulative reductions (transaction and simplifiedprocedure (art. 464-2-III & L. 464-5 com) Com. 22 Nov 2005, Calculators Com. Opinion, 11 Jul 2005; Com. 28 Nov 2006

11. Part Two - Substantive Law, Under the Rationale of Economics The extent of the control exercised by the Cour de Cassation : Checks correct application of the law and the motivation of appealeddecisions (legal basis), in whichlaw and economics are complementary

12. Substantive Law and the Economics (1) 1 - Determining the relevant market Court of Appealmayreview the analysis of NCA and substitute another motivation Factualanalysis, bound by economic doctrine and the principleof legalcertainty Com. 28 June 2005, Novartis Pharma Com. 6 Dec 2005, Roquefort cheesemarket

13. Substantive Law and the Economics (2) 2 - Qualifying the anticompetitiveobject/effect of anti-competitive practices ACP * Abuse of dominant position : squeeze prices on mobile telephonemarket by integrated dominant operators, followed by agreementswiththeir international counterparts to bill theircompetitors for international rerouting, characterize ACP, regardless of anyotherpossibility for the competitors to avoidthisblockage Com. 10 May 2006, Etna association

14. Substantive Law and the Economics (3) * Implicitagreements in oligopolisticmarkets : retrospective non-public information on theiractivity, exchanged by operators on regular basis, is not sufficientper se to assess an adequatereduction of their commercial autonomy and consequentlycharacterize ACP Com. 29 June 2007, Bouygues Telecom & al. Comp. ECJ, 28 May 1998, John Deere Ltd v Commission

15. Substantive Law and the Economics (4) 3 - Defining the responsibleentity Principles of economic and functionalcontinuity of the enterprisewhere ACP wereenacted ECJ, 8 Jul 1999, EnichemAnic Spa → in the case of a merger, the absorbingcompanyresponds for ACP enacted in the absorbed one, Com. 28 Jan 2003, Domoservices maintenance →regardlessany agreement excludingsuch a transfer, provided all the activities have been transferred Com. 28 Feb 2006, EFS; Com. 22 Feb 2005, Socarel

16. Substantive Law and the Economics (5) 4 – Assessing the sanction (art. L. 464-2 com) Fines up to 10 % worldwide turnover of the firm 3 principles : motivation, proportionality, individualisation (+ reiterationsince L. NER 15 May 2001) →seriousness of the ACP, harm to the economy (duration of ACP, structural and conjoncturaleffects, size of the market), →personal situation of the firm (size and financial position, power of influence …) All theseelements must beassessedwithreference to the case Com. 23 Apr 2003, Interflora; 14 March 2006, France Telecom Com. 6 March 2007, EstuaryMotorway construction

17. CONCLUSION