comp. Cass. com. January 15, 2002
DECISION CA Versailles (12th Ch., 2nd sect.), November 22, 2001. N ° 02-163. – Company Thalia c / company Spizza 30.
Reference BICC 558
The state of economic dependence, within the meaning of Article L. 420-2 of the Commercial Code , is assessed with regard to the importance of the turnover achieved by the person who invokes it with the person from whom he is concerned. considers in a state of dependence, the place occupied by the latter in the distribution of the product concerned, the factors which led to the concentration of sales and the possible existence of alternative diversification solutions.
A company which confines itself to reporting a turnover of up to three quarters with a single customer does not characterize, in the absence of other detailed and comparative elements, its alleged situation of economic dependence.
KEY WORDS . Competition – Ordinance of 1 December 1986 – Anti-competitive practice – Abusive exploitation of the economic dependence of others – Economic dependence – Assessment criteria – Criteria cumulatively required
DECISION (S) COMMENTARY (S): Court of Appeal of Versailles, 12 th bedroom, 22 November 2001 Company SOFEMI against COMILOG Company
AUTHOR (S): Zeidenberg, Sacha
REFERENCE: Le Dalloz, Business Law Cahier, n ° 22, June 6, 2002, pp. 1824-1829
KEYWORDS: Competition , anti-competitive practice , abuse of a dominant position , economic dependence, customer, supplier, majority shareholder, discriminatory practice , obstacle to competition, abuse of economic dependence, civil action
Economic dependence is defined as being the relationship in which one of the partners has no alternative solution if he wishes to refuse to contract under the conditions imposed on him by his client or supplier. It follows from there that a company can validly invoke the benefit of article L 420-2 of the Commercial code only on the condition of demonstrating to be found in a relationship of customer to supplier.