FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Emmanuel Reille, Dimitri Dimitrov, Franck Audran, Laura Castex and Elizabeth Gautier, Gide Loyrette Nouel
4. Class and Collective Actions 4.1 Statutory Basis
of Appeal ruled that a claimant – having initially par - ticipated in the cartel – had thus been aware of all the necessary facts to bring an action before the com - mercial court, even before the date of the FCA’s deci - sion. The limitation period had therefore begun to run before the date of the FCA’s decision (Paris Court of Appeal, 14 September 2022, RG No 20/17560). As regards abuse of dominant position, certain replies by alleged victims to requests for information from the investigation services may be taken as the starting point for the limitation period. Again, this will depend on the information provided to the FCA’s investigation services in the context of those replies. 3.2 Typical Length of Private Antitrust Litigation The duration of proceedings will vary depending on the complexity of the case (procedural issues, stays of proceedings, communication of documents, expert opinions on the amount of damages, etc). A stay of proceedings is often requested by defend - ants in private enforcement litigation pending the outcome of a parallel investigation by a competition authority and/or an appeals court. On the basis of Articles 377 et seq of the French Civil Procedure Code (FCPC), a judge may – depending on the circumstanc - es of the case – decide to stay the progress of the proceeding for a given period or until the occurrence of an event that they specify. The grounds for a stay are the effect a public enforce - ment decision can have on the judgment to come in a compensation claim and the need to guarantee the proper administration of justice. On such grounds, French judges often grant stays of proceedings until the competent competition authority issues a final decision. The stay can be extended at the request of any party pending the decision of appeal courts, as long as the judge is satisfied that the aforementioned conditions are fulfilled.
On 3 May 2025, Law No 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 on the adaptation of various provisions from the EU’s economic, financial, environmental, energy, transpor - tation, health, and circulation of persons legislation ( Loi portant Diverses Dispositions d’Adaptation au Droit de l’Union Européenne , or the “DDADUE Law”) came into force. Article 16 of this law replaces the former class action regime established by Law No 2014-344 of 17 March 2014, the so-called Hamon Law, which had been widely unused (only 32 class actions filed since its creation). It provides that a class action may be brought on behalf of several natural or legal persons in a similar situation resulting from the same breach or a breach of the same nature of its legal or contractual obliga - tions committed by: • a person acting in the exercise or in connection with their professional activity; • a legal entity governed by public law; or • by a private-law entity responsible for managing a public service. Class action is brought to obtain either the cessation of the breach, compensation for damages of any kind suffered as a result of the breach, or both. 4.2 Opting In or Out As was the case under the previous regime provided for by the Hamon Law, the new class action regime imposes an opt-in system ‒ ie, consumers must have expressed their unequivocal willingness to participate in the collective action. Class action is now open to a wider range of claimants: approved associations, representative trade unions, and agricultural unions, but also non-approved asso - ciations that can demonstrate two years of activity (only for actions seeking the cessation of infringe - ments). It is also provided that the public prosecutor ( ministère public ) may bring a class action (to seek an injunction against the infringement as the main party) or intervene as a joint party, both in actions for an injunction and in actions for compensation for dam -
89 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook