FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Emmanuel Reille, Dimitri Dimitrov, Franck Audran, Laura Castex and Elizabeth Gautier, Gide Loyrette Nouel
Follow-on and standalone proceedings are both avail - able under French law – although standalone actions are rarer. 2.2 Courts Claims for damages resulting from anti-competitive practices fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of spe - cialised judicial courts, pursuant to Article L420-7 of the FCC, or administrative courts in the case where the author (French Supreme Court, 29 September 2004, EDF v SNIET) or the victim (Council of State, 19 December 2007, Campenon-Bernard, Council of State, 10 July 2020, Lacroix Signalisation No 420045) of an anti-competitive practice is a public person. If this exclusive jurisdiction is violated, the writ of sum - mons will be sanctioned by a rejection. Among the judicial courts, eight commercial courts and eight civil courts of first instance have jurisdiction to deal with competition law litigation, as follows: • commercial courts – Marseille, Bordeaux, Lille, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Nancy, Paris and Rennes; and • first-instance civil courts – Marseille, Bordeaux, Lille, Fort-de-France, Lyon, Nancy, Paris and Rennes. On appeal, the Paris Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction. In addition, specific chambers have been appointed at the Paris Commercial Court and at the Paris Court of Appeal to deal with competition law litigation. The courts have also set up international chambers responsible for hearing disputes affecting international trade. Pleadings may be conducted in English before these chambers. 2.3 Impact of Competition Authorities For proceedings that fall within the scope of Ordinance No 2017-303, final decisions of the FCA (ie, those that can no longer be overruled through ordinary appeal procedures) are binding and irrefutably establish the existence of a fault (paragraph 1 of Article L481-2 of the FCC).
The Ministry of Justice provided guidance in a circu - laire (soft legal instrument), dated 23 March 2017, to assist the courts and the parties in private enforce - ment litigation. The circulaire indicates that Article L481-2 of the FCC is applicable to infringement deci - sions (including settlement decisions and injunction decisions) before the FCA and/or the EC. Decisions that identify competition concerns (such as interim measures proceedings) or commitment decisions may serve as prima facie evidence. Final decisions issued by another national competition authority (NCA) constitute evidence in support of the existence of a fault but are not binding (paragraph 2 of Article L481-2 of the FCC). Paragraph 3 of Article L481-2 of the FCC states that national courts may not decide cases in a way that runs counter to a decision adopted by the EC. 2.4 Proof According to the general principle of tortious liability under French law, the burden of proof rests on the claimant. As discussed in 2.1 Statutory Basis , the standard provision applicable to private enforcement actions – whether follow-on or standalone – is Article 1240 of the French Civil Code on tortious liability, where the claimant must establish a “fault” (ie, an infringement of competition law), damage, and a direct causal link between the fault and the damage suffered. For claims relating to infringements occurring after 11 March 2017, Ordinance No 2017-303 alleviates the claimant’s burden of proof. It creates a non-rebutta - ble presumption of fault for all claims based on final infringement decisions by the FCA (Article L481-2 of the FCC). However, the French Supreme Court recent - ly recognised the possibility of applying Article 1240 of the French Civil Code in light of Article 9 (1) of Directive 2014/104/EU (provision transposed into Article L481- 2 of the FCC) to an action brought before the entry into force of the provisions of the directive (French Supreme Court, 19 March 2025, No S 23-20.418). In another recent ruling, the French Supreme Court also stated that this presumption cannot be used a con - trario ‒ ie, that the rejection of a claim by the FCA on the grounds of insufficient evidence does not give rise
86 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook