On April 25, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a total fine of €2.95 million on Bongard and the members of its distribution network following a settlement procedure for their participation in two anticompetitive vertical agreements in the bakery and pastry equipment sector.[1]

On January 31, 2023, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) presented an interactive network graph tool on its website that identifies references made in FCA antitrust publications (such as decisions, opinions and interim measures published between 2009 2021) to its other publications. The visualization tool (available at: https://sen-codex.dev/) represents these references in the form of a graph interconnecting FCA’s publications with one another.

On February 10, 2023, the French Constitutional Council (“Conseil constitutionnel”) considered that the second sentence of Article L. 464-2, I, paragraph 1 of the French Commercial Code, which provides that the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) may accept commitments in the context of antitrust litigation proceedings, but says nothing about its power to refuse them, complies with the French Constitution and, on this occasion, confirmed that companies can lodge appeals again FCA decisions rejecting suggested commitments.[1]

On March 23, 2023, the French Cour de cassation ruled that requests to restrict the French Competition Authority’s (“FCA”) communication actions relating to a fining decision qualify as applications for interim relief under Article L.464-8 of the French Commercial Code and therefore can validly be brought before the Paris Court of Appeals.[1] 

On March 1, 2023, the French Cour de Cassation (i.e., the French Civil Supreme Court) upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ (“Court of Appeals”) judgment awarding Digicel €180 million in damages for harm suffered as a result of anticompetitive practices implemented by Orange from 2000 to 2006 in the mobile telephony sector in the French West Indies and Guyana.  However, the Cour de Cassation quashed the Court of Appeals’ finding that interest on the damage award should run from April 1, 2003, given that the harm inflicted to Digicel had not fully materialized at that date.