The French Competition Authority (FCA) is the administrative body in charge of enforcing European and domestic competition rules in France. In 2018, it issued 26 contentious decisions, of which 13 imposed fines amounting to an aggregate €240 million. Although half of the Authority's contentious decisions imposed fines, the total amount is much less significant than in previous years (€498 million in 2017, €1 billion in 2015 and €1.2 billion in 2014). Of the 13 decisions imposing fines this year,
- eight sanctioned anticompetitive agreements, under Article L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code or Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);
- one sanctioned an abuse of a dominant position, under Article L.420-2 of the French Commercial Code;
- two sanctioned unjustified exclusive imports rights to the French overseas territories, under Article L.420-2-1 of the French Commercial Code;
- one sanctioned a failure to implement remedies conditioning the previous authorisation of a merger, under Article L.430-8, IV of the French Commercial Code; and
- one sanctioned a failure to comply with commitments agreed upon during a settlement procedure, under Article L.464-3 of the French Commercial Code.
As to its merger control attributions, the FCA issued 235 decisions this year, all authorising the notified operation.
2018 marked Isabelle de Silva's second year at the head of the FCA. As such, the President of the Authority was called before the senatorial Committee for Economic Affairs to present an assessment of her first year in office in 2017 and draw up the Authority's priorities for 2018.2 The digital sector remained under close scrutiny, with a report on online advertising, particular attention towards selective distribution and online retail, and new perspectives on big data and algorithms. Competition in the agricultural sector and food-retail was another focal point of the year, not only for the FCA, but also for courts and the legislator. In addition, the Authority published its procedural notice on the settlement procedure, and announced the first measures of its plan to modernise and simplify merger review in France.
This year saw new appointments among public competition enforcement authorities in France. The FCA welcomed a new Vice-President, Fabienne Siredey-Garnier, who took office in April. Virginie Beaumeunier, former General Rapporteur at the FCA, was made head of the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF). A specific competition authority was created for the special collectivity of New Caledonia, where the FCA will no longer have jurisdiction. Finally, Bruno Lasserre, former President of the FCA, became head of the Council of State (France's Supreme Administrative Court) in May 2018.
These and other relevant developments are discussed below.
The enforcement of Article L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code and Article 101 TFEU, which prohibit anticompetitive practices and cartels, is one of the prime missions of the FCA. In 2018, the Authority issued four decisions sanctioning cartels, fining 18 undertakings for an aggregate amount of €205 million. These figures show a slight decrease compared to 2017 (seven cartel decisions, and one notable €302 million fine against PVC manufacturers) but are in line with the previous year (€203 million). In any case, the lesser number of cartel decisions should not be interpreted as a sign of diminished interest from the FCA, and tackling cartels remains one of its priorities when allocating resources: the Authority was also active on the investigation front this year and leniency applications reached a peak in France. The following cases are worth exploring.
i Significant cases
The largest fine of the year was a cartel sanction, namely a €189 million fine handed down to six household appliance manufacturers,3 among the largest in the sector since they account for about 70 per cent of the sales of white goods in France. The FCA found that they had agreed on recommended retail prices, which increased the cost for distributors and ultimately affected consumers, hampering the otherwise downward trend of prices in the sector. All participants submitted settlement requests and consequently had their fines reduced; one had its fine lowered pursuant to its leniency application, with an additional reduction for active cooperation in the investigation. As is often the case, the Authority favoured settlement because all companies opted for it, but will sometimes not grant it where just one participant refuses to settle. The amounts were high despite settlement, which can be explained by the nature of the infringement – a secret cartel – but also by the fact that it affected consumer goods, meaning the Authority considers the damage to the economy to be much higher. Finally, the case is particularly noteworthy in that the FCA made use of the notion of single, repeated infringement for the first time. As participation to the cartel had been interrupted for a year and a half, the infringement was not continuous; nonetheless, since the practices before and after the interruption were similar and followed the same objective, the infringement was single and repeated. In such cases, the period of interruption cannot be taken into account for the calculation of the fine; however the fact that the enforcer considers the infraction to be single and repeated can be crucial with regard to the limitation period, since the Authority will be able to catch and sanction much older practices than it would have if they had been regarded as two separate infringements.
In another notable case this year, the FCA fined 11 wholesale distributors of veterinary products as well as their professional organisation for a total of €16 million.4 It found that the three biggest companies of the sector had entered into non-aggression pacts. In addition, all distributors and their organisation had taken advantage of the bluetongue health crisis and the mandatory vaccination campaigns that followed by agreeing on cost levels they submitted to the government to maximise their compensation and on the prices they charged veterinarians for vaccines.
The FCA also looked into bid-rigging practices among companies offering security services for tobacco shops.5 Following a DGCCRF investigation, several companies were found to have submitted cover quotes, but the FCA only fined one since other participants had agreed to the settlement procedure offered by the DGCCRF. The case goes to show how it has become quite common for the DGCCRF to bring cases to the attention of the FCA, pursuant to Article L.464-9 of the French Commercial Code, which allows for referrals from the DGCCRF to the Authority. In 2018, four of the 13 sanction decisions issued by the FCA resulted from referrals by the DGCCRF after companies refused to settle before it.6
As regards judicial appeals, the Court of Appeal of Paris (CAP) issued its ruling on the Welded Mesh cartel of Réunion.7 In 2016, the Authority had fined four construction companies and two logistics companies €5 million for taking part in a cartel on the markets of welded mesh and metal frames. The CAP confirmed the bulk of the decision, with a slight alteration as to fines. The Authority had applied the aggravating circumstance of belonging to a large group to two participants, and therefore equally increased their fines by 15 per cent. The Court ruled that the assessment of this circumstance should not only take into account the individual situation of an undertaking, but also compare it to other participants. In the case at hand, although both companies did belong to a large group, one of them was much larger than the other. It followed that the FCA should have increased their sanction by different proportions instead of using the same rate. The CAP therefore diminished the fine increase of one of them from 15 per cent to 7 per cent.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
New procedural notice on settlement procedure
The FCA issued its procedural notice on the settlement procedure in December 2018.8 The French settlement procedure was created in 2015, replacing the 'no contest of objections' procedure. Pursuant to Article L.464-2, III of the French Commercial Code, an undertaking that does not dispute the reality of the objections notified to it can be offered a settlement proposal at the discretion of the FCA, which sets out a minimum and maximum amount for the fine that could possibly ensue. The new notice provides guidance as to the conditions of eligibility and the conduct of proceedings before the investigation services. It specifies that no document transmitted by the parties during the settlement procedure will be included in the investigation file, even in the event that it does not result in a successful settlement; in addition, where the settlement negotiations are in fact successful, the report cannot be disclosed to other parties to the procedure nor to third parties.
Leniency applications from cartel participants
The head of the FCA's investigation services noticed a surge in leniency applications in cartel proceedings this year. Only one company had reportedly applied in 2017, but that number jumped to seven in 2018. The trend could be explained by the increasing number of small and medium-sized companies applying for leniency, whereas the procedure had only previously seemed to attract larger groups. In addition, the rapporteur noted that applications increasingly came from French companies, indicating the development of a compliance culture in France.
The FCA's investigation services were particularly active this year and opened investigations into several key sectors. Some of the most notable probes made public this year could lead to important cases in the years to come. In January, unannounced inspections were carried out in the local subsidiaries of several companies working in the sector of production, import and distribution of tobacco products in January; however, the FCA has since dropped the investigation. In March, the investigation services of the FCA carried out dawn raids in the cosmetics distribution sector, in a joint operation with the investigation and prosecution services of the Belgian authority. Finally, the offices of companies in engineering and technology consulting, IT services and software publishing were probed in November, and several luxury watch retailers were raided in January 2019.
III ANTITRUST: RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS AND DOMINANCE
The FCA's antitrust enforcement activity, other than cartels, covers restrictive agreements under Article L.420-1 of the French Commercial Code and Article 101 TFEU as well as abuse of a dominant position under Article L.420-2 of the French Commercial Code and Article 102 TFEU.
i Significant cases
Among other notable cases, the FCA imposed a €355,000 fine on manufacturers and wholesale distributors of liquid fertilizers.9 It found that producers and distributors had agreed on a vertical pricing scheme, which led to the harmonisation of fertilizer prices. The decision is particularly interesting concerning sanctions, since the Authority granted a fine reduction on the grounds of financial difficulties, which it rarely does; as a result, one of the companies saw its fine reduced by over 99 per cent.
The Authority also issued two decisions sanctioning companies for unjustified exclusive imports in the French overseas territory this year.10 Although such exclusivity rights relate to antitrust, these decisions rely on a specific legal basis, distinct from Articles L.420-1 and L.420-2. Since the 'Lurel act' of 2012, the FCA is also in charge of enforcing Article L.420-2-1 of the French Commercial Code, which prohibits unjustified exclusivity provisions in overseas territories. October's was the fifth decision issued on such exclusive imports since the creation of the ban.
Finally, the FCA fined a recruitment company €4.5 million for not complying with commitments agreed upon during a cartel settlement.11 In 2009, the enforcer had fined three agencies for sharing sensitive information; some of them settled, and had their fines reduced after agreeing to commitments made out to reduce market transparency. To that end, one undertaking was supposed to market some of its products through independent subsidiaries; nevertheless, the Authority found that it had appointed its own director of strategy as head of one of these subsidiaries, thus failing to comply with its commitment. The FCA reiterated that it views violations of commitments as serious infringements, especially in cases such as this one where companies had offered them at their own initiative.
As for the courts, the CAP issued a long-awaited ruling12 on a 2012 FCA decision, after a referral by the Supreme Court. In 2012, the FCA had imposed a €60.9 million fine on SNCF for abusing its dominant position by preventing rivals from accessing vital infrastructures and using strategic information it obtained from competitors when they applied to use its infrastructure. The FCA also found that SCNF was engaging in predatory pricing, but issued an injunction instead of a fine on this account, forcing the company to increase its fees so as to cover its costs. In a first appeal decision in 2014, the CAP found that SNCF's prices were not predatory and partially quashed the FCA's decision; the CAP's ruling was then quashed by the Supreme Court and referred back. This time, the CAP ruled that SNCF had committed exclusionary abuse; however, it reduced the initial fine by 13 per cent to €53 million.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, settled an important matter as to the extension of leniency to a parent company.13 In 2012, the FCA had fined several companies that took part in a cartel of commodity chemicals. One of the undertakings was granted full immunity; however its parent company, which was found jointly liable, since it controlled one of the participants at the time of the infringement, could not benefit from immunity because it had lost control of the company since and had not requested immunity on its own. The Supreme Court fully confirmed that, for an undertaking to be extended the benefit of immunity granted to its subsidiary, it had to be its parent company at the time of immunity application, no matter the fact that it was at the time of the infringement.
Finally, a court of first instance shed light on the interactions between public and private enforcement.14 Competitors had filed an action for damages following a commitment decision by the FCA, meaning that the Authority did identify potential anticompetitive practices but closed the case without confirming nor ruling out the existence of an infringement. The court ruled that a commitment decision did not prevent them from claiming they were harmed by the practices at hand and obtaining damages if they could prove that these practices were indeed anticompetitive. To that aim, the judge is allowed to use the FCA's decision as commencement of proof of the anticompetitive nature of the practices.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
Selective distribution and online sales: implementing Coty
Following the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) Coty ruling in 2017,15 attention was brought to selective distribution and online retail in France this year. The FCA fined a chainsaw manufacturer €7 million for prohibiting its distributors from selling products online.16 It found that the nature of the products and the need to preserve brand image justified a ban on third-party platforms, but the fact that the manufacturer's terms of sales de facto prohibited distributors from selling on their own websites as well disproportionately limited competition. The FCA declared that this decision, its first on online sales restriction since Coty, should be used for guidance as to the applicable framework for selective distribution online. As to the CAP, it also followed in the footsteps of the ECJ and cleared several clauses organising Coty France's selective distribution network.17
Renewed interest for excessive pricing cases
Enforcers are looking more and more into exploitative abuse, in particular excessive pricing, as a series of cases in the pharmaceutical industry recently showed (Pfizer and Flynn in the UK,18 Aspen Pharma in Italy19 and now under EU investigation, or CD Pharma in Denmark20). France is no exception, and 2018 showed a renewed interest for excessive pricing cases. In September, the FCA imposed a €199,000 fine for abusive prices on Sanicorse, an operator handling the disposal of infectious medical waste from healthcare activities in Corsica.21 The Authority stated that Sanicorse had committed exploitative abuse by increasing its prices abruptly, significantly, durably, and without justification. In another sector, the President of the FCA announced in December that online hotel booking platforms were currently under review for a potential case of excessive pricing.
Due process remains a much-debated issue in France when it comes to FCA proceedings. Undertakings often file for judicial review of the dawn raids they were subject to, although it remains quite rare that courts grant their demands and overturn the operations. In a rare instance, in 2018, the CAP fully overturned a probe carried out at Darty in 2013.22 It found that FCA agents had breached Darty's rights of defence by preventing employees from calling lawyers at the beginning of the raid. The FCA was hence ordered to return all documents seized during the probe and refrain from using them or copies of them in its investigation.
IV SECTORAL COMPETITION: MARKET INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATED INDUSTRIES
i Significant cases
Online advertising sector
The FCA published the results of its investigation into online display advertising,23 following an opinion on search advertising in 2010. It observed the sector was characterised by the complexity of its processes and numerous stakeholders, two of them generating most of the revenues, namely Google and Facebook. It identified their main competitive advantages as being their popularity among users, their targeting capabilities and vertical integration. It should also be noted that in the course of the consultation the FCA was made aware of potential anticompetitive practices in the sector. While it is not legally permitted to fully assess them within the context of an opinion, a preliminary examination will be conducted on the basis of the consultation's results to determine whether investigations should be opened.
Fallout of the Endives ruling in the agricultural sector
In the wake of the Endives ruling24 and the adoption of the Omnibus Regulation, the FCA published an opinion clarifying the conditions of application of competition law to the agricultural sector.25 The opinion addressed four main issues. First, as to horizontal practices between producers, the FCA fully implemented the Endives reasoning, reiterating that practices used by producer organisations and associations of producer organisations and formally recognised by Member States could be cleared if they were absolutely necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the organisation. Second, the FCA focused on vertical agreements, between inter-branch organisations which include producers, processors and distributors. Inter-branch organisations are allowed to provide indicators and standard value-sharing clauses to their members, but fixing prices and setting quotas is explicitly banned, and the organisation must comply with competition rules, especially when collecting what can be sensitive commercial information. Third, regarding tripartite agreements (contracts between producers, intermediaries and distributors), the FCA established they bring large efficiency gains, but become problematic when market shares exceed the 30 per cent threshold set by EU law.26 Finally, the Authority addressed competition exemptions for specific products. Member States are allowed to adopt supply control measures for products covered by specific designations of origin and for wine. The FCA underlined that these exemptions only applied to volume management but not to prices. The DGCCRF is now expected to draft guidelines for the sector, based on the FCA's opinion.
The Supreme Court, which had made the reference for a preliminary ruling in the Endives case, also issued its ruling on the matter in September.27 In accordance with the ECJ ruling, it maintained that endive farmers were not allowed to set minimum prices although they could coordinate to some extent within approved producer organisations; it quashed the 2014 appeal decision, which had fully exonerated the farmers, sending them back to the CAP where they will have to once again contest a €3.6 million fine dating back to 2012.
The Authority should maintain its focus on the digital sector. In June 2018, it launched a project with the Bundeskartellamt to study algorithms and their potential anticompetitive effects, building on their joint paper 'Competition and data' published in 2016. A report is expected for 2019. The FCA is also preparing an opinion on the import and distribution of consumer goods in the French overseas department, analysing price evolution and the potential causes for the enduring price differential with metropolitan markets. Other sectors of interest in 2019 include the audiovisual sector, as the FCA will issue an opinion in preparation of a future decree reforming the sector, as well as healthcare, since two opinions on medicinal products are expected for early 2019: the first on their distribution in urban areas; the second on the setting of prices in the industry.
V STATE AID
State aid rules are enforced at the European level by the European Commission (EC) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In 2018, the EC made 29 decisions on measures implemented by France; 26 of them were decisions not to raise objections, one found that the measures at hand did not constitute state aid,28 one approved most of the scheme while ordering France to recoup a partial amount,29 and one initiated a formal investigation procedure.30 The following cases are worth exploring.
i Significant cases
After a first negative decision in 2004, quashed on appeal, the EC found that the €9 billion shareholder loan granted to France Telecom in 2002 did not constitute state aid, since it could not be proven that a private investor would not have acted similarly.31 The Commission also approved a plan jointly notified by France, Germany, Italy and the UK to grant €1.75 billion to joint research and innovation in the field of microelectronics; the integrated project was deemed to be compatible with EU state aid rules and to contribute to a common European interest.32
As regards European courts, the CJEU put an end to the 15-year legal battle over tax breaks granted by France to EDF and confirmed that France will have to recoup €1.37 billion. In 2003, the Commission had found that France had waived a tax claim in favour of EDF, breaching EU state aid rules; however, this first decision was annulled by the General Court (GC). The Commission adopted a new decision in 2015, still finding the aid was incompatible. In January 2018, the GC sided with the Commission and dismissed EDF's action, stating that France had indeed granted an illegal tax waiver and rejecting the argument that the private investor test should have been used.33 In December, the ECJ dismissed EDF's appeal.34
The ECJ also issued its ruling in the Sernam case, dating back to 2001. At that time, the Commission had conditionally authorised restructuring aid of €503 million in favour of Sernam, a private company then wholly owned by SNCF.35 It later appeared that the conditions for compatibility had not been complied with, and that France had granted €41 million worth of additional, new aid. As a result, a second EC decision declared the €41 million to be incompatible aid and set new conditions for the compatibility of the initial €503 million.36 Pursuant to those new conditions, Sernam had to sell its assets en bloc. In order to enable this divestment, SNCF recapitalised Sernam, waived its debt and granted certain guarantees to the purchaser. In 2012, the Commission found that the conditions set in its second decision had not been met, and that the €41 million aid had not been recouped. As a result, the €503 million aid authorised in 2001 now had to be viewed as incompatible. In addition, the measures granted to allow for the sale of Sernam's assets constituted new incompatible aid. In the end, a total of €642 million had to be recouped. In 2015, the GC dismissed an action brought by SNCF seeking the annulment of the 2012 decision.37 This year, the ECJ dismissed SNCF's appeal, making France's recovery obligation final.38
ii Trends, developments and strategies
Public support to the energy sector
The EC has dedicated an increasing part of the state aid agenda to public funds for the energy sector. In particular, the Commission cleared several French measures furthering the Union's energy and climate objectives. The first pertained to CSPE, a surcharge paid by electricity consumers.39 The EC reviewed CSPE reductions granted to electricity-intensive consumers, which it deemed compatible with state aid rules since those reductions were linked to support measures for renewable energy. Some, however, will have to be recouped because they exceeded authorised levels. The EC also approved a support scheme of €200 million to electricity production from renewable sources for self-consumption.40
Commission inquiry into French airports' support in favour of Ryanair continues
The European Commission has opened another in-depth investigation into potential aid in favour of Ryanair in French airports, this time in Montpellier.41 It will examine marketing agreements between Ryanair and the local tourism association, an independent organisation funded mostly by public entities. This new investigation echoes three GC decisions this year, regarding support in favour of Ryanair at the Nimes,42 Angouleme43 and Pau44 airports: the Court confirmed that France will have to recoup €5 to €7 million, €870,000 and €1.5 to €2.2 million respectively.
VI MERGER REVIEW
In 2018, the FCA issued 235 merger review decisions under Articles L.430-1 to L.430-10 of the French Commercial Code, which shows steady transactional activity in line with 2017 (236 decisions) and 2016 (230 decisions). All were clearances, among which four were granted subject to commitments45 and one subject to injunctions,46 only the second case of injunctions since the Authority was entrusted with merger control powers. The main sectors affected by transactional activity were the food retail sector, automotive retail, property development and real estate, and insurance services.
i Significant cases
The standout case of 2018 was the first Phase III decision, as the Minister for the Economy decided to use his power to re-examine an operation for the first time since that procedure was created in 2008. Cofigeo had notified the acquisition of certain assets of the Agripole group. The FCA conditionally cleared the transaction in July 2018.47 The Authority had identified multiple competition concerns, yet Cofigeo did not offer adequate remedies; as a result, the FCA used its power of injunctions to order divestments. This injunction power allows it, under exceptional circumstances, to impose remedies and clear the transaction rather than block it, and had only been used once until now. The Minister for the Economy then chose to reassess the deal pursuant to Article L.430-7-1 of the French Commercial Code, which grants him power to evoke a case on grounds of public interest other than competition concerns. The Minister required employment and industrial policy commitments but no divestments, and adopted an authorisation decision48 that overruled that of the Authority, rendering the initial injunctions void.
This year also brought new developments regarding the Fnac/Darty merger. The FCA had cleared the acquisition in 2016 provided that Fnac Darty divest several stores. The purchaser presented for some of these stores was not approved, and no other buyer was found before the deadline. As a result, the Authority imposed a €20 million fine for failure to meet part of the commitments.49 Meanwhile, Fnac Darty challenged the constitutionality of the law which allows the President of the Authority to approve or reject a purchaser alone, without referring to the College; the Council ruled that this power was conform with the Constitution.50
In April, the FCA cleared the acquisition of Sarenza by Monoprix51 and of André by Spartoo.52 The two deals were independent, however the Authority examined them jointly since they raised similar questions. Both of them involved the merger of two operators of the retail sector, with each time one being a physical distribution group and the other an online selling platform. The Authority saw those transactions as the sign of a trend of omnichannel group development. Building on that assessment, the FCA announced that it planned to open a market study into 'phygital' distribution, since its development is 'one of the biggest changes to the economy in recent years'.53
Finally, the FCA cleared the merger of two property advertising websites.54 It was the first time it had reviewed an operation between two online platforms, and most of its analysis focused on the importance of data and potential network cross-effects.
As regards next year's prospects, 24 operations were under review at the time of writing. Among other notable projects, the Authority is examining a joint venture between RATP, the state-owned public transport operator, and Keolis, a Franco-Quebecois private operator, which would run the new express line between Paris and CDG Airport. No less than seven of the 24 operations being reviewed pertain to the food retail sector.
Purchasing agreements in the food retail sector
Joint purchasing agreements, although not analysed as mergers, are still subject to mandatory notification to the FCA if they exceed certain turnovers, under a specific procedure created in 2015 and set out by Article L.462-10 of the French Commercial Code. Accordingly, two sets of purchasing agreements were notified, for information, in May and June 2018. The Authority decided to open an in-depth investigation and extended the scope of inquiry to a third agreement.55
Modernisation and simplification of the French merger procedure
The FCA is currently in the process of modernising and simplifying merger review proceedings. This year, it published the results of a consultation launched in 2017. It confirmed the existing thresholds were still appropriate, including the specific threshold applicable to the retail sector. Although the possibility of a new transaction value threshold was entertained at some point, this option was ruled out. The Authority is now looking into introducing ex post control, and launched a new consultation on the issue. As for simplification, it suggested reducing the amount of information required for notification, extending the scope of the simplified procedure, and creating an 'ultra-simplified, dematerialised' procedure. New merger guidelines are expected for spring 2019.
The FCA announced its priorities for 2019 in January. Sectoral focus will include the digital sector, healthcare, distribution and energy. In addition, the Authority will continue to carefully examine the state of competition in the French overseas territories.
Next year, attention should also be paid to the implementation of the settlement procedure under the recent notice and to the upcoming new merger guidelines. Finally, the legal framework within which the FCA operates could undergo substantial transformation and its powers could be significantly strengthened as part of the Action Plan for Business Growth and Transformation (PACTE bill) currently under discussion in the Senate.
1 Olivier Billard is a partner at Bredin Prat.
2 Isabelle de Silva's hearing, Commission for Economic Affairs, 14 March 2018.
3 FCA, decision 18-D-24 of 5 December 2018.
4 FCA, decision 18-D-15 of 26 July 2018. An appeal is pending.
5 FCA, decision 18-D-05 of 13 March 2018.
6 FCA, decision 18-D-02 of 19 February 2018; decision 18-D-05 of 13 March 2018; decision 18-D-17 of 20 September 2018; decision 18-D-19 of 24 September 2018.
7 CAP, 15 March 2018, No. 16/14231, ruling on an appeal against FCA, decision 16-D-09 of 12 May 2016.
8 FCA, procedural notice of 21 December 2018 on the settlement procedure.
9 FCA, decision 18-D-26 of 20 December 2018.
10 FCA, decision 18-D-03 of 20 February 2018 and decision 18-D-21 of 8 October 2018.
11 FCA, decision 18-D-09 of 21 June 2018.
12 CAP, 20 December 2018, No. 17/01304.
13 Supreme Court, 10 July 2018, No. 17-13973 and 17-14140.
14 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 22 February 2018, No. 15/09129.
15 ECJ, 6 December 2017, case C-230/16.
16 FCA, decision 18-D-23 of 24 October 2018.
17 CAP, 28 February 2018, No. 16/022633.
18 UK Competition and Markets Authority, case CE/9742-13, decision of 7 December 2016 partially quashed by the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
19 Italian Competition Authority, case A480, decision of 29 September 2016.
20 Danish Competition Council, decision of 31 January 2018.
21 FCA, decision 18-D-17 of 20 September 2018, made available in English by the FCA. An appeal is pending.
22 First President of the CAP, 28 March 2018, No. 17/16586.
23 FCA, opinion 18-A-03 of 6 March 2018.
24 ECJ, 14 November 2017, case C-671/15.
25 FCA, FCA, opinion 18-A-04 of 3 May 2018.
26 Regulation (EU) No. 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices.
27 Supreme Court, 12 September 2018, No. 14-19589.
28 EC, 18 May 2018, case SA.12594.
29 EC, 31 July 2018, case SA.36511.
30 EC, 4 July 2018, case SA.47867.
31 EC, 18 May 2018, SA.12594.
32 EC, 18 December 2018, SA.48705.
33 GC, 16 January 2018, case T-747/15.
34 ECJ, 13 December 2018, case C-211/18.
35 EC, 23 May 2001, case SA.12522.
36 EC, 20 October 2004, case SA.12522.
37 GC, 17 décembre 2015, case T-242/12.
38 ECJ, 7 March 2018, case C-127/16.
39 EC, 31 July 2018, case SA.36511.
40 EC, 22 October 2018, case SA.49180.
41 EC, 4 July 2018, case SA.47867.
42 GC, 13 December 2018, case T-53/16.
43 GC, 13 December 2018, case T-111/15.
44 GC, 13 December 2018, case T-165/15.
45 FCA, decision 18-DCC-65 of 11 May 2018; decision 18-DCC-141 of 31 August 2018; decision 18-DCC-148 of 21 September 2018; decision 18-DCC-235 of 28 December 2018.
46 FCA, decision 18-DCC-95 of 14 June 2018, acquisition of Agripole (William Saurin) by Cofigeo (later overturned by decision of the Minister for the Economy).
47 FCA decision 18-DCC-95 of 14 June 2018.
48 Minister for the Economy and Finance, decision of 19 July 2018.
49 FCA, decision 18-D-16 of 27 July 2018.
50 Constitutional Council, decision QPC 2018-702 of 20 April 2018.
51 FCA, decision 18-DCC-50 of 20 April 2018.
52 FCA, decision 18-DCC-53 of 20 April 2018.
53 Isabelle de Silva, 'The impact of digitalization on competition policy and practice', Lisbon Conference on Competition Law and Economics, 18 October 2018.
54 FCA, decision 18-DCC-18 of 1 February 2018.
55 FCA, press release of 16 July 2018.