Alex Delarge South Park

The Court of Appeal of Paris confirmed the condemnation of the "Cartel of moving" a little Competition Law for Dummies


(
version with links to Agoravox, Credit picture: Imagine)
This article provides a quick summary of the case said the cartel of mobile (Bouyges secret agreement, SFR and Orange), and prolongs the problem Component "repair" of the case.
From 1997 to 2003, the three major mobile operators have organized a secret deal aimed to maintain their high prices, and to allocate market shares amicably. The following links will present clearly the facts of the case: On

Boursorama

On the website of the Competition Council
On the website of UFC-Que Choisir

This Tuesday, December 12, 2006, the Court Appeal of Paris confirmed the sentencing decision (the heaviest ever handed over 500 million euros, and particularly hard to Orange) of the Competition Council of 30 November 2005.

The Competition is essential in the functioning of the market: it exerts a downward pressure on prices, is a strong incentive for innovation, limit shortages and surplus energy. Without competition, the price stood at a level called "monopoly", ie at the most favorable for the company. For example, the company will rely on its production curves to set prices and production levels. Competition is actually the force that connects the supply to market forces and more competition, the lower the arbitration by the Market is wrong.

Reaching an agreement is found, under our Code of Commerce and the European treaties.

The fines are intended to punish the breach of Contract. Therefore they are relatively low, given the damage to consumers. Indeed, to a fine of more than 500 million euros, we assessed the damage caused to the 20 to 30 million consumers and 1.2 billion euros (low end). The penalty has no deterrent effect, therefore, at best it will reduce, for offenders less skilled, the profit of larceny. Last year the question on what basis the Consumers can claim compensation for his injuries caused within my Master of heated debates. In principle if a contractual relationship exists between the parties, the responsibility is to hire contractual liability. Or in this case the obligations of the contract have been met: the network access and related services has been provided to customers. For my part, I'm focused on Article 1382 of our Civil Code, which is our non-contractual liability clause (referred to as tort). For compensatory damages (compensation for damage) on this basis, must convene a fault (a cartel), injury (an overpayment), and causation (the contract not negotiable). Reportedly, it is on the latter basis it will be possible to seek compensation for damages caused to consumers.
problem is highlighted by this case: small brooks make great rivers. Damages are individually too small to make it interesting for a consumer to sue the operator, and sometimes it's not even worth spending the time to find the invoices showing that there has been a victim of the deprivation. That say inflation procedures Justice?

For these 'reasons were provided ways of Law in which the consumer agreed associationsde hold the upper hand.


Thus, in the early 1990s, the inventor of Consumer Law, Jean-Calais Auloy, saw a part of its proposed class actions brought legally to Articles L422-1, L 422-2 and L 422-3 of the Consumer Code. It was just the mechanism that he was considering for litigation groups involving a small number of consumers, which explains its failure to adapt to large-scale litigation.

In fact, this is a simplified mechanism mandate, which relieves including obligations to inform the principal.

The fact remains that this mechanism is cumbersome, requires a fee and time investment too high for the consumer there is widespread use. Alain Bazot, president of UFC Que Choisir (largest consumer association in France), and although it had assumed all costs of the procedure for entering the plaintiffs' action in joint representation, "has managed to rally than 12 500 records 20 to 30 million victims (yes, really!).

Jacques Chirac had asked during the presentation of his vows in 2005, an effort should be done to create a real group action, a class action in France before the end of his reign as president. Ensued conventions DGCCRF and MEDEF on the subject, I encourage you to read that the MEDF which can be summarized as follows: an intervention of Baron Seilliere in the introduction and conclusion, to the detriment of the group action , and the parade of speakers supported the principle of class action, and wondering about the form it should take.

A project is currently supported by the majority. It is tasteless, useless, without consistency. Dare I say, not reality, if not to be a decoy pretending to be concerned about access catastrophic to justice. We must remember the excitement at the Bobigny court for reassessment of legal aid? And the ratio of UMP on this three tier justice?

I will try to produce Agoravox analysis of the bill, but in any event, the 100 call was not heard, and I got the confirmation at the conference of November 2006 The Consumer Law held in Montepllier. Me Casanova, president of the Bar of Montpellier, Mr. Henry Hall, director of the Center for Consumer Law, Faculty of Law, and his own master, Jean-Calais Auloy, took their arguments to storm the member UMP and the representative of MEDEF present.

What the Anglo-Saxons call "private enforcement" is probably the land on which it must be a focus for one day the Competition Law as a deterrent (see this analysis Panafieu on the subject). Especially in this era where we can reflect on the voluntarism of the State in the matter: strange vision of the economy than MT Breton, right?