The Court of Justice of the European Union has recently issued a decision that could significantly increase the financial consequences that the members of a cartel are likely to bear. The Court held that the members of a cartel may, in certain circumstances, be ordered to provide compensation for the loss suffered by the client […]
French legal provisions applicable to sudden breaches of established business relationships are frequently applied in the framework of cross-border disputes between French and foreign companies, irrespective of which company is the terminated or the terminating party. By a decision rendered on May 20, 2014 in relation to a dispute between French companies and their Dutch […]
In a decision dated March 25, 2014, the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) ruled on the sensitive issue of the determination of the law applicable in case of breach of business relationships[1]. Under French law, Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code (the “FCC”), which provides for […]
Regulation 44/2001 known as the “Brussels I Regulation” [1] lays down rules on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within EU Member States. It includes provisions to determine the competent court in disputes that fall within its scope of application. The basic principle, set forth in Article […]
In a decision rendered on January 21, 2014[1], the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) has ruled that the operation, without prior authorization, of a business activity governed by the legislation on classified facilities for the protection of the environment[2] could be considered as an act of unfair competition. This decision […]
The number of court decisions concerning the sudden breach of established business relationships is continuously increasing… But the new rulings do not necessarily tally with what we would expect, as demonstrated by a decision recently rendered by the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) and commented herein[1]. The facts of the case are as follows: […]
Strategic Lawyering