Anti-Competitive Practices and Jurisdiction

In a decision of 22 October 2024, the Lyon Court of Appeal recalled that the Paris Court of Appeal has sole jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to restrictive competition practices and anti-competitive practices. 

A company sought, before the Commercial Court of Lyon, the conviction of its co-contractor on the basis of the abuse of economic dependence and the sudden termination of established commercial relations.   

The latter was dismissed of his claims, and therefore appealed to the Lyon Court of Appeal.  

The Respondent submits that the appeal is inadmissible by arguing that disputes relating to anti-competitive practices fall within the jurisdiction of specialized courts at first instance, and that appeals against these decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal.  

In response, the Lyon Court of Appeal cites the reversal made by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 18 October 2023 ruling that the provisions designating the courts competent to hear the application of restrictive practices of competition establish a rule of exclusive jurisdiction of attribution and not a plea of inadmissibility. 

As a reminder in this judgment, the Court of Cassation had ruled:

  “12. The Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber also specified that although applications based on the aforementioned Article L. 442-6 should be declared inadmissible when presented before a non-specialized court, the latter could nevertheless validly rule on applications based on common law, in particular Article 1134 of the Civil Code, as then applicable (Com., 7 October 2014, Appeal No.13-21.086, Bull. 2014, IV, No. 143)
 

13. This complex jurisprudential construction, which does not correspond to the terminology of Articles D. 442-3 and D. 442-4 of the Commercial Code, which have since become, respectively, Articles D. 442-2 and D. 442-3 of this Code, which refer to the jurisdiction of these courts and not to their jurisdictional power, results in confused solutions and generates, for the parties, legal uncertainty as to the determination of the court or the court of appeal that may hear their actions, their claims or their appeal. It also gives rise to rigorous procedural solutions for litigants who, following an error in the choice of the court seised, may find that some of their claims cannot be examined, due either to the intervention of the limitation period or the expiry of the period for appeal. Moreover, its complexity of implementation does not meet the objectives of the proper administration of justice.
    
14. Finally, it is in contradiction with Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from which it follows that the designation of a court by reason of the matter by the rules relating to the judicial organization and by special provisions falls within the jurisdiction of attribution.
    
15. This finding led the Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber to modify its case law.
    
16. It is therefore appropriate to rule henceforth that the rule arising from the combined application of Articles L. 442-6, III, now L. 442-4, III, and D. 442-3, now D. 442-2, of the Commercial Code, designating the only courts indicated by the latter text to hear the application of the provisions of I and II of the aforementioned Article L. 442-6, now Article L. 442-1, establishes a rule of exclusive jurisdiction and not a plea of inadmissibility. ”
    

The Court of Cassation had therefore made a change of case law on the basis of the articles of the Commercial Code which designated the courts competent in matters of restrictive practices.  

However, on the basis of this decision, the Lyon Court of Appeal declares itself incompetent to rule both on applications under the law of restrictive practices, but also on that of anti-competitive practices.  

It therefore rejects the plea of inadmissibility of the claims raised by the respondent.  

The Lyon Court of Appeal thus removes the doubt that could weigh on the scope of the judgment of the Court of Cassation, by extending its scope to anti-competitive practices.