Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREThomas Rouhette and Claire Massiera analyse recent trends and developments in France in the 2023 Chambers Global Practice Guide on Antitrust Litigation, with a focus on loss quantification and passing-on defence. Partner Thomas Rouhette and Counsel Claire Massiera’s chapter was published in the 2023 Chambers Global Practice Guide on Antitrust Litigation, and can be found here.
Introduction
As pointed out by the French Competition Authority in its 2022 annual report published in July 2023, “anti-competitive practices are now even more risky for companies, which are faced with significant additional financial risks as a result of the rise in actions for damages”. The trending rise of such actions is an observation made year on year which is unlikely to be reversed.
Directive 2014/104/EU on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions has set out several rules to ensure that undertakings “can effectively exercise the right to claim full compensation”. Several mechanisms are provided for in the directive, which are innovative for some jurisdictions, such as the rebuttable presumption of fault in follow-on cases or access to evidence aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the right to compensation.
While we have been witnessing an increase in follow-on cases, courts are still in the process of clarifying the rules governing actions for damages in light of the core foundations of civil liability. This chapter will focus on recent decisions handed down by the French Cour de Cassation and their takeaways.
The Quantification of Losses
The quantification of losses is one of the thorniest issues which courts have to address considering the technicality of the matters at hand. The Commission has provided a general communication on quantifying harm in which it acknowledged that “A major difficulty encountered by courts, tribunals and parties in damages actions is how to quantify the harm suffered. Quantification is based on comparing the actual position of claimants with the position they would find themselves in had the infringement not occurred. In any hypothetical assessment of how market conditions and the interactions of market participants would have evolved without the infringement, complex and specific economic and competition law issues often arise. Courts and parties are increasingly confronted with these matters and with considering the methods and techniques available to address them” (Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2013/C 167/07)).
The Commission has drawn up a practical guide detailing the methods to use for quantifying harm. The Paris Court of Appeal has also issued several very useful guides on the quantification of losses which cover topics such as “How to compensate for damage caused by the passage of time”, “What consideration is to be given to the role of victims of economic loss?”, “How do you compensate for the damage caused by an anti-competitive practice?” or “What are the economic methods that can be used to assess loss?”.
This guide notably explores the use of the counterfactual method which has been retained in a recent landmark decision by the Cour de Cassation in order to assess the loss resulting from the barriers to the growth from which the victim would have benefited had anti-competitive practices not been carried out (Cour de Cassation, Commercial Chamber, 1st March 2023, nos. 20-18.356 and 20-20.416).
The proceedings were brought by Digicel, a mobile telephone operator, which had sustained damage due to exclusionary practices implemented by the incumbent operator in the French West Indies-Guyana region. Such practices included exclusive agreements entered into with independent local distributors and with the only authorised cell phone repair center in the Caribbean, a customer loyalty program acting as deterrent for consumers to change their mobile operator at the end of their subscription period and price discrimination.
The takeaways from this decision regarding loss assessment are the following.
This landmark decision is in line with the principle of full compensation, with the Cour de Cassation affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision to acknowledge both the eviction loss and additional loss.
While there has been a strong tendency to rely on court-appointed experts for damage assessment rather than on private experts, such finding is a strong reminder that parties should absolutely appoint private experts. The parties should also ensure that they provide the court with a solid and comprehensive expert opinion, that addresses the opposing party’s potential criticisms.
Temporal Applicability of Article 13 of the Damages Directive on the Passing-On Defence
While the Damages Directive was to be transposed into national laws in December 2016 at the latest (it was transposed into French Law by Order of 9 March 2017), issues relating to the application ratione temporis remain frequent issues in antitrust litigation.
The CJEU handed down an important decision on this matter (CJEU, 22 June 2022, C-267/20, Volvo AB/DAF Trucjs NV), in which it set out the analysis to be carried out by national judges in order to determine the temporal applicability of the provisions of Directive 2014/104. The CJEU’s decision provided that “it is necessary to establish, in the first place, whether or not the provision concerned constitutes a substantive provision”. As a second step in the analysis, the CJEU ruled that “Once it has been determined whether the provision concerned is substantive or not, it is necessary to ascertain, in the second place, whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which that directive was transposed late, the situation at issue, in so far as it cannot be described as new, arose before the expiry of the time limit for the transposition of that directive or whether it continued to produce effects after the expiry of that time limit.” The Court added that “The fact remains that, where a national court has to determine a dispute between individuals, it is for that court, where appropriate, to interpret the national provisions at issue in the main proceedings, so far as possible, in the light of EU law and [...] without, however, interpreting those national provisions contra legem”.
The Cour de Cassation applied this ruling in a case between Carrefour and Johnson & Johnson relating to the temporal applicability of Article 13 of the Damages Directive per which the burden of proving, in a passing-on defence, that an overcharge was passed on lies with the defendant (Cour de Cassation, 19 October 2022, no. 21-19.197). In this case, Carrefour had brought an action for damages against Johnson & Johnson, its supplier of hygiene products, on 23 January 2017, ie, after the expiry of the deadline for transposing the Damages Directive, but before the transposition into French Law.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Carrefour’s action as it failed to prove it did not benefit from the anti-competitive practices, prompting it to lodge an appeal on the ground that direct effect of EU law should have led the Court to apply Article 13 of the Damages Directive and therefore reverse the burden of proof, the transposition period having expired.
The Cour de Cassation reminded that based on CJEU case law, a directive cannot, by itself, create obligations for an individual and cannot therefore be invoked as such against them. The Cour de Cassation then applied the Volvo case, ie, it considered whether it could interpret national law, upon expiry of the time limit for transposing the Damages Directive not yet transposed, “so as to render the situation at stake immediately compatible with the provisions of that directive” without interpreting French law contra legem. The Cour de Cassation considered
“for acts committed prior to the entry into force of these provisions, pursuant to Articles 1382 and 1315 of the Civil Code, which have become Articles 1240 and 1353 of the Civil Code [...] that the burden of proving the existence of the damage caused by an anti-competitive practice lies with the claimant for compensation and that the claimant must, in light of the usual business practices, establish that it did not pass on the additional costs arising from a cartel to its own customers [...]” (Section 11).
The Cour de Cassation therefore considered that “After having established that the facts giving rise to the liability action brought by the Carrefour companies predated the entry into force of Article L. 481-4 of the Commercial Code and after having ruled that the provisions of Article 13 of the Directive were incompatible with the national law in force on the date of its transposition, the Court of Appeal rightly inferred that it could not interpret the rules of evidence applicable to the action referred to it in light of the latter text [...]” (Section 12).
While this decision clarifies the issue on the temporal applicability for the passing-on defence, it is not exempt of criticism. One might argue that Article 13 should not have been considered as a substantive provision but rather a procedural one. In fact, in the Volvo case, the CJEU underlined that “it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that the rules on the burden of proof and the standard of proof are, in principle, classified as procedural rules”.
Liability of Parent Companies for their Subsidiaries’ Practices
A recent decision handed down by the Cour de Cassation (Cour de Cassation, 7 June 2023, no. 22-10.545) in the scope of the so-called dairy products cartel (French Competition Authority, no. 15-D-03, 11 March 2015) has enshrined vicarious liability in a private enforcement case: the Court relied on the European case law relating to the requirement lying with the parent company to bear the burden of its subsidiary’s condemnation over which it exercises decisive influence which had been applied in the public enforcement field and ruled that it ought to be extended to actions for damages.
The Court specified that such presumption could be rebutted if the parent company provides “any evidence relating to the organisational, economic and legal links between itself and its subsidiary such as to show that the latter acted autonomously on the market and that they do not form a single economic entity” (Section 7).
Law stated – 30 October 2023
