欧盟地域封锁禁令–电子商务网站的新战略

14 6 月 2018

  • 欧洲
  • 法国
  • 分销协议
  • 反垄断
  • 电子商务

In a recent decision on the 24th of October 2018 (n°18-D-23), the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence, aka AdlC) fined the Stihl company (leader in mechanized culture products) for his practices in his selective distribution network. Stihl managed to restrict the sale of its products by its authorized distributors on their own website and to prohibit them from marketing them on third-party platforms.

The ruling is considered by the AdlC as having “vocation to clarify the framework applicable in France for the different sectors and products, beyond the sole sector of the mechanized culture”.

In this case the network implemented by the supplier was a selective distribution network. Therefore, AdlC’s position can only concern the implementation of a selective distribution network and is not applicable to an exclusive distribution network (see our Update Distribution/Competition, April 2018).

  1. The lawfulness of the selective distribution network

The Authority follows the traditional analysis of validity of a selective distribution network. First, it highlights that selection of resellers was based on objective criteria such as qualitative nature, applied in a uniform manner and without any discrimination.

Then, the Authority had to determine whether the qualitative criterion conditioning the lawfulness of the selective distribution system was fulfilled or not. The Authority has decided that the fact that products in question are of a delicate assembly and that some of them even present risks for safety of users, justifies setting up a network of selective distribution.

  1. The lawfulness of the ban on selling technical products on third-party platforms

The decision of the AdlC was especially expected on this point because it had to take into account rulings rendered by the CJEU and then by the Paris Court of Appeal in the Coty cases ((CJUE 6/12/17, affaire 230/16; Cour d’appel de Paris, pôle 5, ch 4, 28 février 2018, n° 16/02263). The question was: the right of suppliers to prohibit their authorized distributors from distributing their products on third-party platforms is limited to luxury goods only (the Coty hypothesis) or could be extended to include others products? The hypothesis of this extension had already been addressed by other courts in Europe and also by the Advocate General before the CJEU (see our Update Distribution/Competition, December 2017) and then by the European Commission.

In a nutshell the Authority extends the Coty case law to technical products whether they are dangerous or not.

First of all, the Authority notes that “prohibition to sell on platforms contributes to preserving the safety of consumers and to guaranteeing the brand image and the quality of the products concerned”.

Then, the Authority checked whether this restriction did not go beyond what is necessary in regards to characteristics of products in question. It notes that in the case of third-party platforms, this restriction allows supplier to control that its distributors comply with requirements of distribution network.

Finally, the AdlC checked whether this prohibition was not disproportionate, and in this case, noted that there is no disproportion in so far as distribution on third-party marketplaces is not a main marketing channel for mechanized culture products.

This result (validation of the ban on the sale of products on third-party platforms) may allow many economic operators to believe legitimately that the scope of the Coty case law can be broad.

  1. Prohibition of restrictions on resale of products on distributors’ websites

However the AdlC has refused to approve the clause restricting resale of products by distributors on their own websites.

In this case, if customers of the distributors could place an order online, they had to, for products with a certain dangerous nature (such as chainsaw, pruner, brushcutter, etc.) either come to withdraw the product at a (physical) sell point owned by distributor or to be delivered by the distributor. Distributor had indeed underwritten a complete obligation to “put in hand” the machine, including the oral communication of usage instructions and a demonstration.

The AdlC decided that this obligation to put in hand was actually to cancel advantages attached to Internet selling and thus to prohibit purely and simply Internet selling. According to the Authority, this restriction went beyond what is necessary to preserve consumer’s health.

The AdlC had to determine whether this restriction was a restriction by object or effect. According to the Authority, the restriction at stake reduced the ability of distributors to sell products outside their usual customers catchment area, and as such should be characterized as a competitive restriction by object.

On possible exemptions issues, the Authority first rejects the possibility of category exemption within the meaning of the EU Block Exemption Regulation No 330/2010, the anti-competitive practice being comparable to a restriction characterized by passive sales within the meaning of Article 4, para. (c). Possibility of an individual exemption was also rejected by the Authority after examining any efficiency gains related to this “put in hand” obligation.

The Authority could have taken advantage of this particular case, to refine the Pierre Fabre / Bang & Olufsen case law and validate and update sales restrictions on the Internet when the proper nature or quality of products justifies such a restriction.

In summary, the marketing of products involving high technicality or which tend to be dangerous by using it:

  • justifies the implementation of a selective distribution network;
  • may be prohibited on third party platforms (if the selective distribution network is considered lawful);
  • could not be restricted on the websites of authorized distributors of a lawful selective network, for lack of “efficiency gain” in favor of consumers, according to a very (too?) strict position of the AdlC.

On this last point, it will probably be necessary to wait for a clearer solution given by the Court of Appeal of Paris (in front of which a recourse is now pending) or the Court of Cassation.

法国是特许经营关系网的大市场，近2000家特许经营关系网处于运营状态。这是最成功的商业发展计划之一。

特许人必须主要遵守法国关于预先披露信息的规定以及法国和欧盟的竞争条例等规定。虽然对授予特许者来说，对关系网质量和品牌形象的控制是一个非常重要且合法的问题，但授予特许者不能过多地干预特许经营人的日常活动，因为特许经营人是独立商家。因此，授予特许人与特许经营人之间的关系只能建立在商法的基础上，而不能建立在劳动法的基础上。然而，法国最近的规定将导致授予特许者与特许经营者和他们的雇员一起实施某些劳动法。

在法国经营特许经营关系网的外国特许经营者确实必须知道如何应对《劳动法》（2016年8月8日）及其法令（2017年5月4日）所带来的限制，并自2017年5月7日起生效，该法令涉及为整个特许经营关系网设立一个雇员论坛。事实上，这个社会对话委员会可以对特许经营关系网的组织工作产生深刻的影响。

首先，新的社会对话委员会只关心经营者受特许权协议约束的关系网。因此，商标许可和分销合同似乎没有包括在内。特许权协议应被理解为由三项单独协议构成的特殊合同：商标许可协议、专有技术许可协议和商业或技术援助协议。然而，2016年8月8日的法律却造成了一些混乱，规定社会对话委员会所涉及的特许协议是“引用《法国商法典》第L330-3条”协议，尽管该条不仅没有界定特许合同的定义，而且可以适用于其他合同（独家分销协议），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

此外，根据该法案，只有包括“对特许经营企业的工作组织和条件有影响的条款”的具体特许协议才会受到关注。尽管该法没有界定这些条款，一方面，是否需要社会对话委员会取决于确定这些条款；另一方面，特许经营者在组织和管理其业务，包括在雇佣劳工事务方面，本质上独立于授予特许人。因此，有必要对所有特许经营协议进行就业审计（例如，如果条款规定营业时间或规定着装怎么办？），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

最后，只有在法国雇用至少300名（全职）工作人员的特许经营关系网才要求设立社会对话委员会。这似乎不包括特许经营人的雇员或不受特许经营协议约束的经营者的雇员(例如受商标许可合同约束的经营者)。

意味着长期谈判的实现

即使满足了法律要求，授予特许人也没有义务自发成立社会对话委员会。然而，一旦工会要求成立社会对话委员会，授予特许人就有义务积极参加该行业发起的谈判，与所有特许经营者核实其关系网上的雇员人数是否达到300人的门槛，然后建立一个由雇员（工会）代表和雇主（授予特许人和特许经营人）代表组成的“谈判论坛”，用来达成创建和组织未来社会对话委员会的协议。

与工会和特许经营者的谈判将在6达成协议但须经授予特许人、工会和至少30%的特许经营者(占关系网雇员的30%)的同意。该协议应确定社会对话委员会的组成、其成员的任职方式、任期、会议的频率、如果需要，雇员可以为委员会贡献多长时间、委员会实现其宗旨所需的物质或财政手段、以及如何处理费用和代表的旅费和生活津贴等问题。最后一个问题可能不仅是授予特许人关注的一个主要问题，而且也是特许经营人-雇主关注的一个主要方面。由于没有达成这样的协议，该法令规定设立社会对话委员会，其中有几项严格和最低限度的规定，可能会给授予特许人造成不合理的负担。

一旦成立，内部规则将确切界定社会对话委员会的运作方式（所需的多数人、会议通知和引荐来源、讨论内容的公布等）。

无事生非？

社会对话委员会无权调查案件或作出具有约束力的裁决，但社会对话委员会必须让大家知道特许经营者加盟或离开销售关系网的情况，以及“授予特许者的决定，易于影响到特许经营者雇员的数量和结构、工作时间或就业、工作和职业培训条件”。

社会对话委员会还可就如何改善贯穿整个关系网的条件提出建议。

社会对话委员会的影响终究相当有限，但授予特许人必须认真掌握和控制规则的实施，以避免损失自己的特许经营商的时间和精力以及关系网的混乱。

地域封锁是一种歧视性做法，由于客户的国籍或其居住地或营业地，阻止客户（主要是网上客户）从另一欧盟成员国的网站获取和（或）购买产品或服务。

欧盟条例在2018年2月28日颁布的关于解决基于客户国籍、居住地或营业地在国内市场上的不合理的地域封锁和其他形式的歧视的欧盟第2018/302号条例将于2018年12月2日生效。

当前情况

欧盟委员会对欧盟的1万多个电子商务网站进行了“秘密购物”调查。地域封锁指数相当高！63%的网站不允许购物者从另一个欧盟国家购买商品（甚至包括86%的家用电器和79%的电子和计算机硬件）。

另一方面，当电子商务的价值和数量就全球来说，年复一年地大幅增长时，只有50%的欧洲客户从设在另一个欧盟成员国的网上商店购买产品，但这种现象只是在国内范围而非整个欧洲。

2017年6月23日，欧洲理事会要求切实执行数字单一市场战略的所有内容，包括跨界交付、消费者保护和禁止不当地域封锁。

现行法律框架的缺失

欧洲联盟指令（欧盟第2006/123/CE号指令）和TFUE第101条已经解决了基于国籍、地区或住所或营业地的歧视做法。

根据欧盟指令第20(2)条，欧盟成员国必须确保专业人员不因客户的居住地、营业所或国籍而区别对待（客观例外情况除外）。另一方面，关于纵向限制的欧盟竞争法(《欧盟运行条例》第101条和集体豁免条例及其指南)认为，对被动销售的限制是违反欧盟竞争规则的核心限制。然而，这两套规则(欧盟指令和竞争法框架)在实践中似乎并不完全有效。

在这方面，欧盟委员会在最近关于电子商务部门竞争调查的报告中表明，地域封锁尤其在欧洲电子商务部门内得到了大规模使用。

地域封锁条例的目的

地域封锁条例的目的是防止专业人员在处理跨国界电子商务交易时，基于国籍、居住地或客户营业地而实施的直接或间接歧视。

地域封锁条例的范围

新的条例将只适用于企业与最终用户或企业之间的网上销售。

新条例将适用于在欧盟内运作的网站或在欧盟以外运作但向设立在欧盟内的客户提供货物或服务的网站。

电子网站的管理新规是什么？

关于访问网站的问题

根据该条例，企业不得以与互联网用户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的理由，通过使用技术措施来阻止或限制其进入网络接口。然而，只要客户明确同意，并且仍然可以轻松访问他们原先试图访问的网站版本，企业就有权将客的访问方向改变到他们试图访问的网站之外的另一个网站。

关于网站的销售条款和条件

该规则禁止企业在下列三种情况下，根据客户的国籍、居住地或营业地（特别是他们的IP地址），提供不同的一般条件来取得货物或服务：

提供送货服务的企业将售出的商品送达到另外的欧盟成员国交付（或在企业与客户共同商定的地点收取货物）的；

企业提供的电子化服务，如云、数据存储、主机服务等。（但不提供访问受版权保护的内容的服务，如流媒体或在线游戏服务）；

顾客获得的在各个国家均可运行的商务服务（如汽车租赁和旅馆住宿服务或体育或文化活动的票务服务）。

关于网站上的付款方式

该条例禁止企业以与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地、支付账户所在地或支付服务提供者的设立地有关的理由，对已接受的支付手段适用不同的支付条件（条件是必须符合认证要求，付款交易必须以企业接受的货币进行）。

这项规定对电子零售商有什么影响？

尽管在形式上被排除在该条例范围之外，但供应商与分销商或批发商之间的关系仍将受到该条例的影响，因为根据分销商之间的协议规定，分销商承诺不进行被动销售（例如，阻止或限制进入网站），由于与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的原因“将自动无效”。

因此，地域封锁条例对分销商的影响是双重的：第一，在与客户（最终用户或用户企业）的关系中产生直接影响；第二，在其根据独家分销协议所承担的义务方面产生间接影响。

地域封锁条例必须与现行竞争法框架相协调，特别是与制定适用于网上销售的具体规则的纵向限制指导方针相协调。网上销售被比作被动销售。指导方针中提到4个实践中为了间接保证地方保护主义，在供应商和独家分销商同意的情况下被禁止的例子：

独家经销商应阻止另一地区的客户访问其网站，或自动将其转到供应商或其他经销商的网站，

如果买方的信用卡数据显示买方不是独家经销商的专有区域，独家经销商应终止网上销售。

限制独家分销商通过互联网销售的份额（但合同可规定按绝对值计算的最低线下目标，并规定与离线销售相比，网上销售保持一致）。

独家分销商对在互联网上销售的货物支付的价格，应高于对准备在离线销售的货物支付的价格。

制造商将必须决定是采用一个独一无二的欧洲门户网站报价还是多个地方商业报价，众所周知，每个范畴的客户端是有可能存在价格差异的。

事实上，新规定并没有强制电子零售商协调其价格政策，它们只是必须允许欧盟消费者自由和容易地访问其网站的任何版本。同样，该条例并没有规定电子零售商必须将产品运往欧洲各地，而只是允许欧盟消费者从他们想要的任何网站购买商品，并在必要时自行安排发货。

最后，在更为契约性的层面上，尚不十分清楚新的地域封锁规则如何直接或间接地影响适用于消费者合同的冲突法规则，根据罗马第1号规定(Rome I Regulation)，特别是在允许消费者在本网站所在国的外国网站上购买产品时（这意味着在消费者所在国无特定交货制度已建立。）

因此，B2C网站的一般条款和条件需要在营销和法律两方面进行审查和调整。

France has for long been seen as a “social trap” by foreign investors… and it was often right.

The last few months have been dedicated to change this, in order to secure more employers, and allow more flexibility (in a negotiated framework) within companies.

On the 14th of February, the Senate has ratified what we call the “Macron” decrees that were issued at the end of September.

Below, a summary of what you need to know in 8 points.

1 – More flexibility in the motivation of dismissal letters

In France, dismissals must be justified. However, to reduce litigation and convictions of employers linked to lack of motives, it is now provided that:

  • Before referring to the Judge, employees might ask their employer for more explanation on what the allegations against them are, this to defuse conflict and promote dialogue.
  • If the employee did not ask for more explanations, the dismissal will not be judged unjustified for a lack of motives but only an irregularity of procedure might be retained (giving an entitlement to a maximum of 1 month salary as damages).
  • The employer might, if asked by their employee or at their own initiative, explain more into details the reason for termination, and this explanation will be taken into account by the Judges in case of litigation (when before, only what was written in the dismissal letter was taken into account without any possibility to give any further explanation).

The time-limit to challenge a dismissal is moreover reduced to 12 months (vs 2 years before) with an aim to rapidly secure the situations.

2 – Some changes in redundancies

At last, a glimmer of hope for employers belonging to an International group: the perimeter of appreciation of the economic reason which is required to make someone redundant, is now restrained to the national territory (except for fraud).

It means that an investor abroad who has financial difficulties on the French territory can, from now on, decide redundancies even if the other companies of the group abroad make profit.

Also, the research for redeployment shall take place within the French territory only and not in the whole group outside France.

3 – Damages scales

In matter of dismissal without any substantial grounds, a compulsory statutory scale is included in the Labour Code.

These new provisions are applicable to any dismissal issued after the 25th of September.

The maximum allowance is set at 20 months of gross salary for someone having 29 years’ seniority or more when being unfairly dismissed.

4 – Termination Indemnity

For all the terminations decided by an employer or for any agreed termination concluded after the 25th of September, the legal indemnity is now:

  • 1/4 of gross salary per year of presence for the 10 first years of seniority,
  • 1/3 of gross salary per year of presence for more than 10 years of seniority.

Moreover, the minimum seniority required is lowered, from one year to eight months continuous seniority to be able to benefit from this legal termination indemnity.

5 – Home Working

Companies who want to organize work from home (other than occasional) must implement it by a collective agreement or a company charter, specifying the eligible positions to this work mode, the working conditions, etc. If telework is refused, the employer shall explain the reasons for refusal to the employee.

On the contrary, for an occasional work from home, only the parties’ agreement is required without any formality or financial compensation.

6 – Merger of staff representatives in a unique Social and Economic Committee

Until recently, French companies have had Workers’ Representatives (“Délégués du Personnel”), Work’s Council (“Comité d’Entreprise”), Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committee (“CHSCT”) depending on the company’s workforce. Sometimes, these Committees were linked one to another or sometimes just merged.

This implied a complexity and often an obligation for the employer to officially hold several meetings on the same topic with different representatives (no matter if those meetings had the same elected members or not).

Now this is simplified: as soon as companies reach the number of 11 employees on their payroll, they have to implement an Economic and Social Committee (CSE). Its missions and resources are more or less important depending if the threshold of 50 employees is reached or not.

A Company’s agreement might as well enforce the fact that this CSE will also have the power to negotiate agreements (instead of the Unions) and will from now on be named Company Council (inspired by Germany).

7 – Larger possibilities to negotiate Company’s own rules, even if these rules do not comply with Branch Agreements

The announced revolution took place: the Company’s Collective Agreements now prevail over the branch agreements as a general rule (even if some clauses of the Branch Collective Agreements should still be respected).

A brand new occasion for employers to grab this opportunity and to adapt and customize the rules of the game for the needs of their company and their employees, renegotiating for example bonuses (seniority bonus, vacation bonus, …) or some aspects of working time.

Specific working conditions can also be negotiated if they are necessary to the well-functioning of the company.

8 – Opening of company‘s negotiations to the small companies without staff representatives

In companies with less than 50 employees, possibilities to negotiate are now on larger, to allow the managers to negotiate with staff representatives or with employees if there is no Union in the company.

An agreement can be concluded directly with the employees who approve the agreement draft by referendum, especially, in companies with less than 20 employees and without any staff representatives.

Wide possibilities are therefore now open to companies in France, no matter the size, the absence of unions, or the branch of activity, as long as they are willing to negotiate with their personnel.

众所周知，法国法律对执行国际仲裁裁决（特别是在法国境外作出的仲裁裁决）极为有利。如果对方当事人在法国拥有资产，这个法院应相应地把它视为一项优先事项。

下文介绍了为在法国执行国际仲裁裁决而采取的必要步骤。请注意，所述的某些步骤只是潜在的，取决于另一方可能抵制执行的意愿。

步骤 1: 获取司法确认

该裁决被提交给巴黎民事法院（Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris）的首席法官，由他决定是否给予司法确认。没有要归档的简报。

首席法官的答复所需的时间因法院的工作量和他能否出庭而大不相同。不过，在特殊紧急情况下，总可以与办事员在办公室商讨，来处理紧急事宜。

在实际操作中，需要下列文件才能继续工作：裁决的原件或经核证的副本、裁决的经认证的译文、仲裁协议的副本以及每份文件的经认证的副本和一份补充副本。

步骤2：保护司法确认

如果批准或拒绝司法确认，可在其裁决开始后一个月内向巴黎上诉法院提出上诉。如果上诉方在国外注册或有住所，则可申请额外的距离延期。

如果批准司法确认，对方当事人往往试图以《法国民事诉讼法》（«CCP»）第1520条的限制理由质疑该裁决在法国的可执行性，理由通常是：

  • 仲裁庭错误地支持或无管辖权，
  • 仲裁庭的组成不规范，
  • 仲裁庭作出的裁决未与诉讼请求保持一致，
  • 违反了正当程序要求，或
  • 该裁决的承认或执行将违反法国的国际公共政策。

在目前的司法环境中，令人感兴趣的是巴黎上诉法院的新的判例法，允许对仲裁庭在所谓的贿赂案件中的事实调查结果进行有限的修订（见AD newsflash）。

在提出上诉后，对方当事人必须在3个月内就上诉提交完整的意见书，被告自上诉人提交上诉书的日期起，有3个月的时间来答复上诉人（新的延误按照自2017年9月生效的2017年5月6日的改革）。

提出附加的意见书，额外增加一套是常见的做法，而且一次听审通常安排在上诉人向法院提出初步声明后18个月左右进行。

必须指出的是，在这类诉讼中，已准予执行裁决的裁决在法国仍然具有可执行性，因此，除非被告向法院提出中止执行的具体申请，否则该裁决的受益人在继续获取利益的过程中将不存任何障碍。（《刑事诉讼法》第1526条）

步骤3：维护裁决的即时可执行性（可能）

为了把不公正地损害被执行裁决的一方的特殊情况考虑在内，《刑事诉讼法》保留在特殊情况下请求上诉法院中止执行裁决的可能性。

在这种情况下，债务人必须证明，强制执行将对其权利造成严重的有害后果（第1526条2款）。符合的标准是限制性的。当裁决的受益人是一家外国公司时，通常会要求将款项提存，而不是立即转给受益人，理由是如果对方当事人对执行令的上诉胜诉，它将很难收回资金。

这些程序通常会被加快(在1个月或2个月内进行审理)。对方当事人在对司法确认令提出上诉后立即提出请求。根据听证日期，需要迅速提交一份简要答复。

步骤4：扣押资产

扣押资金

在收到司法确认令后，执达吏可下令扣押在法国银行账户中的任何资金。

该过程是一个“saisie-attribution”，以下简称“扣押”。执达吏得到指示，前往有关银行总部，通知银行扣押与裁决相对应的款项。

请注意，法国执达吏可以访问一个名为FICOBA的特定文件，该文件向他们提供债务人的开户银行的名称。

一旦执达吏要求银行提供资金，银行就有义务提供可用资金的详细资料。大多数银行会在同一天被组织起来答执达吏的要求。

一旦执达吏对资金执行扣押，该款项即被视为债权人的财产，债务人不得使用。这可能使债务人的业务陷于瘫痪，因此建议谨慎行使扣押。

然后在8天内将扣押通知债务人。

这些资金仍然处于冻结状态，以便债务人提出潜在的质疑（1个月）。

扣押其他种类的资产

当然，可以根据法国法律扣押其他各种资产（不动产、公司股票、债券等）。扣押金通常是最容易的。

步骤5：对方当事人对扣押的质疑（可能）

在收到扣押通知后一个月内，被扣押方有权向执行官（“Juge de l’exécution”或“JEX”）提出质疑。

对方当事人可以提出的论点通常涉及扣押本身，并且不涉及司法确认令的有效性，因为其他程序可出于这一目的。

在JEX之前通常需要交换几份辩护状和举行一场听证会。

可以对JEX的决定提出上诉。上诉并不妨碍执行。但是，存在特别程序要求上诉法院在某些条件下中止执行（有明显过分的后果）。

总之，这一过程相当简单明了，即使债务人有合法的追索权，而且上述措施可能显得相当具有技术性。一旦债权人获得了司法确认，潜在的公共力量就会自然而然地被给予债权人。

请注意，尽管众所周知，法国法院在判决法律费用方面并不慷慨，但有些判决在这一领域已经用了大量款项（例如，在CA Paris，26日9月2017年的60万欧元，第16/15338号）因此，在成功的情况下，强制执行的费用由债务人承担。

这篇文章的作者是Flore Poloni

If you want to develop your distribution network abroad, a network of commercial agents is the easiest way, and France is no exception. Before entering into an agency  contract ruled by French law, it is nevertheless advisable to know its main features, which will be discussed in this post. 

Definition

A commercial agent is a professional representative who negotiates and eventually concludes contracts in the name of and on behalf of his principal.

The French Commercial Code (Article L134-1) defines a commercial agent precisely as:

«L’agent commercial est défini comme un mandataire qui, à titre de profession indépendante, sans être lié par un contrat de louage de services, est chargé, de façon permanente, de négocier et, éventuellement, de conclure des contrats de vente, d’achat, de location ou de prestation de services, au nom et pour le compte de producteurs, d’industriels de commerçants ou d’autres agents commerciaux.»

«The commercial agent is an agent who, as an independent professional, without being bound by an employment contract, is in a permanent position to negotiate and eventually to enter into contracts for the sale, purchase, rent/hire or performance of service in the name and on behalf of manufacturers, industrialists, traders or other commercial agents.»

The definition shows that the agent is independent: he/she is free to organise his/her own employment activity and business (sole agency, limited company etc.). This notion is fundamental, because the more the agent will be present and active in the organisation of the principal activity, the more the contract will be at risk of being requalified as a VRP (employee contract of sales representative) contract by the courts.

In the spirit of the contractual relationship and in the drafting of the contract itself, one must be very careful not to confuse an agent with a VRP since, according to French law, the latter is considered an employee, with greater rights and compensation for termination of contract.

Requirements

The agent must be registered in the register of commercial agents at the Registry of the Commercial Court at his place of domicile. 

Contract form

The written form is not mandatory but strongly recommended. Article L134-2 of the Commercial Code provides that each party may request both the contract and addenda to be in writing.

Execution of the contract – important clauses

  • Duration: for a fixed period or indefinite.
  • Fee: a commission freely defined between the parties.
  • Territory: it is very important to define the territory with precision and avoid wide generic clauses such as “world”.
  • Exclusive: the clause must specify whether the exclusivity is in relation to the territory and/or on the clientele in a precise manner and if the principal reserves the right to intervene.
  • Notice of withdrawal (Article L134-11, paragraph 3 of the Commercial Code): 1 month for the first year, 2 months for the second year, 3 months thereafter.

Post-contract – important clauses

Post-contractual non-competition clauses (Article L134-14 of the Commercial Code) must be in written form and limited to a maximum of 2 years post-contract.

The non-competition clauses restriction (territory, customers, products) must not be so restrictive as to prohibit the agent from working after the end of the contract. Therefore customers and products included in the agreement must be competitors of the type of goods subject of the agency contract. Otherwise, the courts will consider the clause as null and non-existent, entitling the agent to claim compensation.

French law does not provide any compensation for compliance with this clause.

After termination of the contract, the agent is entitled to an indemnity for termination as compensation (Article L134-12 of the Commercial Code). It is a rule of public order, therefore, the clause that provides for an exemption of this entitlement will be considered null and non-existent.

The agent has one year to assert this right to severance indemnity.

There is no requirement of keeping it in writing, however, it is advisable to write a notice of receipt as proof of the termination.

The amount of the compensation is equal to two years of commissions (gross) received by the agent. This is to be seen as a maximum measure and it is up to the principal to prove the reason as to why the agent should be entitled to a lower compensation.

In the event of litigation, the courts will at their discretion evaluate the amount of the request of a maximum of two years.

Cases in which compensation is not due:

  • Assignment of the contract to another agent;
  • Termination of the contract by the agent;
  • Serious non-fulfilment of the contract by the agent.

Serious breach of contract can result from the non-fulfilment of clauses that are defined in the contract as important or must be assessed from time to time with the advice of your lawyer.

Focus: the termination of contract due to retirement

The agent is entitled to the indemnity for termination as compensation also when he/she ceases the activity and retires.

French jurisprudence (in particular the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation), however, requires a more specific check of the reason for the termination of the contract: the agent must not only claim to be entitled to the retirement pension, he should also assert he is not in physical conditions to be able to work anymore.

Which is the competent French court?

Even if the agent is a trading company, the nature of the contract is still civil. By virtue of this, the competent court varies according to the person who brings the claim.

If the agent is the claimant, he can choose between “tribunal de grande instance” and “tribunal de commerce”.

If, on the other hand, the principal is the claimant, he must also begin the claim before the “tribunal de grande instance”.

If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

  • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
  • a frustration or a force majeure.

There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

  • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
  • the good faith of the parties;
  • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
  • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
  • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

  • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
  • sudden;
  • unpredictable.

To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

  • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
  • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
  • a constant increase in turnover;
  • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
  • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
  • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
  • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
  • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

  • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
  • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
  • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

Compensation for a damage

The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

International law

The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

  • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
  • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

Less than one year from now, on May 25, 2018, the new European Regulation on the protection of personal data (EU) 2016/679 will come into force. Whatever its size or business activity, every company has to process personal data files at some point.

The new sanctions provide a strong incentive to prepare organisations for compliance with the new legal framework in twelve months’ time.

Non-European undertakings must also be particularly careful regarding these new measures, the principal aspects of which are summarised below.

Extraterritorial application

The Regulation applies to personal data processing when the controller is established on the territory of the European Union.

If the controller is not established in the European Union, the Regulation applies when data processing involves persons situated within the European Union and when the processing is linked to the offering of goods or services to such persons.  Non-EU companies must appoint a representative for this purpose.

The right to data portability and appointment of a DPO

This new right enables a person to recover the data that he has supplied in a form that is easily reusable, such as a USB key for example. Companies must get organised in order to be able to satisfy these portability requirements.

Appointment of a Data Protection Officer

Companies must appoint a DPO (Data Protection Officer), successor to the CIL (Correspondant Informatique et Libertés) who is appointed based on his professional skills (legal and technical), his independence and his accessibility in order to ensure compliance.

We would like to point out that a specialist lawyer should be authorised to carry out this role provided relevant Bar rules do not prevent it.

Sanctions

These measures must imperatively be respected at the risk of seeing heavy sanctions imposed.

Depending on the category of infraction, these sanctions may amount to:

  • 10 to 20 million euro; or
  • 2% to 4% of annual world revenues,

The higher of the above two amounts is applied.

Recommendations

To ensure that your practices comply with the new legislation, it is necessary to:

  • Set in motion an internal project dedicated to compliance with the new legislation within the next 9 months;
  • Anticipate the obligations specified by the Regulation;
  • Budget for the right to data portability and the position of DPO;
  • Organise, for SME, the sharing of the DPO position with other companies.

The author of this post is Thierry Aballéa.

Christophe Hery

业务领域

  • 代理中介
  • 反垄断
  • 仲裁
  • 分销协议
  • 电子商务
联系方式 Christophe

写信给 Christophe





    阅读 Legalmondo 的隐私政策
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    France – The “Macron” decrees on labour

    6 3 月 2018

    • 法国
    • 劳动法

    In a recent decision on the 24th of October 2018 (n°18-D-23), the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la Concurrence, aka AdlC) fined the Stihl company (leader in mechanized culture products) for his practices in his selective distribution network. Stihl managed to restrict the sale of its products by its authorized distributors on their own website and to prohibit them from marketing them on third-party platforms.

    The ruling is considered by the AdlC as having “vocation to clarify the framework applicable in France for the different sectors and products, beyond the sole sector of the mechanized culture”.

    In this case the network implemented by the supplier was a selective distribution network. Therefore, AdlC’s position can only concern the implementation of a selective distribution network and is not applicable to an exclusive distribution network (see our Update Distribution/Competition, April 2018).

    1. The lawfulness of the selective distribution network

    The Authority follows the traditional analysis of validity of a selective distribution network. First, it highlights that selection of resellers was based on objective criteria such as qualitative nature, applied in a uniform manner and without any discrimination.

    Then, the Authority had to determine whether the qualitative criterion conditioning the lawfulness of the selective distribution system was fulfilled or not. The Authority has decided that the fact that products in question are of a delicate assembly and that some of them even present risks for safety of users, justifies setting up a network of selective distribution.

    1. The lawfulness of the ban on selling technical products on third-party platforms

    The decision of the AdlC was especially expected on this point because it had to take into account rulings rendered by the CJEU and then by the Paris Court of Appeal in the Coty cases ((CJUE 6/12/17, affaire 230/16; Cour d’appel de Paris, pôle 5, ch 4, 28 février 2018, n° 16/02263). The question was: the right of suppliers to prohibit their authorized distributors from distributing their products on third-party platforms is limited to luxury goods only (the Coty hypothesis) or could be extended to include others products? The hypothesis of this extension had already been addressed by other courts in Europe and also by the Advocate General before the CJEU (see our Update Distribution/Competition, December 2017) and then by the European Commission.

    In a nutshell the Authority extends the Coty case law to technical products whether they are dangerous or not.

    First of all, the Authority notes that “prohibition to sell on platforms contributes to preserving the safety of consumers and to guaranteeing the brand image and the quality of the products concerned”.

    Then, the Authority checked whether this restriction did not go beyond what is necessary in regards to characteristics of products in question. It notes that in the case of third-party platforms, this restriction allows supplier to control that its distributors comply with requirements of distribution network.

    Finally, the AdlC checked whether this prohibition was not disproportionate, and in this case, noted that there is no disproportion in so far as distribution on third-party marketplaces is not a main marketing channel for mechanized culture products.

    This result (validation of the ban on the sale of products on third-party platforms) may allow many economic operators to believe legitimately that the scope of the Coty case law can be broad.

    1. Prohibition of restrictions on resale of products on distributors’ websites

    However the AdlC has refused to approve the clause restricting resale of products by distributors on their own websites.

    In this case, if customers of the distributors could place an order online, they had to, for products with a certain dangerous nature (such as chainsaw, pruner, brushcutter, etc.) either come to withdraw the product at a (physical) sell point owned by distributor or to be delivered by the distributor. Distributor had indeed underwritten a complete obligation to “put in hand” the machine, including the oral communication of usage instructions and a demonstration.

    The AdlC decided that this obligation to put in hand was actually to cancel advantages attached to Internet selling and thus to prohibit purely and simply Internet selling. According to the Authority, this restriction went beyond what is necessary to preserve consumer’s health.

    The AdlC had to determine whether this restriction was a restriction by object or effect. According to the Authority, the restriction at stake reduced the ability of distributors to sell products outside their usual customers catchment area, and as such should be characterized as a competitive restriction by object.

    On possible exemptions issues, the Authority first rejects the possibility of category exemption within the meaning of the EU Block Exemption Regulation No 330/2010, the anti-competitive practice being comparable to a restriction characterized by passive sales within the meaning of Article 4, para. (c). Possibility of an individual exemption was also rejected by the Authority after examining any efficiency gains related to this “put in hand” obligation.

    The Authority could have taken advantage of this particular case, to refine the Pierre Fabre / Bang & Olufsen case law and validate and update sales restrictions on the Internet when the proper nature or quality of products justifies such a restriction.

    In summary, the marketing of products involving high technicality or which tend to be dangerous by using it:

    • justifies the implementation of a selective distribution network;
    • may be prohibited on third party platforms (if the selective distribution network is considered lawful);
    • could not be restricted on the websites of authorized distributors of a lawful selective network, for lack of “efficiency gain” in favor of consumers, according to a very (too?) strict position of the AdlC.

    On this last point, it will probably be necessary to wait for a clearer solution given by the Court of Appeal of Paris (in front of which a recourse is now pending) or the Court of Cassation.

    法国是特许经营关系网的大市场，近2000家特许经营关系网处于运营状态。这是最成功的商业发展计划之一。

    特许人必须主要遵守法国关于预先披露信息的规定以及法国和欧盟的竞争条例等规定。虽然对授予特许者来说，对关系网质量和品牌形象的控制是一个非常重要且合法的问题，但授予特许者不能过多地干预特许经营人的日常活动，因为特许经营人是独立商家。因此，授予特许人与特许经营人之间的关系只能建立在商法的基础上，而不能建立在劳动法的基础上。然而，法国最近的规定将导致授予特许者与特许经营者和他们的雇员一起实施某些劳动法。

    在法国经营特许经营关系网的外国特许经营者确实必须知道如何应对《劳动法》（2016年8月8日）及其法令（2017年5月4日）所带来的限制，并自2017年5月7日起生效，该法令涉及为整个特许经营关系网设立一个雇员论坛。事实上，这个社会对话委员会可以对特许经营关系网的组织工作产生深刻的影响。

    首先，新的社会对话委员会只关心经营者受特许权协议约束的关系网。因此，商标许可和分销合同似乎没有包括在内。特许权协议应被理解为由三项单独协议构成的特殊合同：商标许可协议、专有技术许可协议和商业或技术援助协议。然而，2016年8月8日的法律却造成了一些混乱，规定社会对话委员会所涉及的特许协议是“引用《法国商法典》第L330-3条”协议，尽管该条不仅没有界定特许合同的定义，而且可以适用于其他合同（独家分销协议），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

    此外，根据该法案，只有包括“对特许经营企业的工作组织和条件有影响的条款”的具体特许协议才会受到关注。尽管该法没有界定这些条款，一方面，是否需要社会对话委员会取决于确定这些条款；另一方面，特许经营者在组织和管理其业务，包括在雇佣劳工事务方面，本质上独立于授予特许人。因此，有必要对所有特许经营协议进行就业审计（例如，如果条款规定营业时间或规定着装怎么办？），以确定该关系网是否属于该法的范围。

    最后，只有在法国雇用至少300名（全职）工作人员的特许经营关系网才要求设立社会对话委员会。这似乎不包括特许经营人的雇员或不受特许经营协议约束的经营者的雇员(例如受商标许可合同约束的经营者)。

    意味着长期谈判的实现

    即使满足了法律要求，授予特许人也没有义务自发成立社会对话委员会。然而，一旦工会要求成立社会对话委员会，授予特许人就有义务积极参加该行业发起的谈判，与所有特许经营者核实其关系网上的雇员人数是否达到300人的门槛，然后建立一个由雇员（工会）代表和雇主（授予特许人和特许经营人）代表组成的“谈判论坛”，用来达成创建和组织未来社会对话委员会的协议。

    与工会和特许经营者的谈判将在6达成协议但须经授予特许人、工会和至少30%的特许经营者(占关系网雇员的30%)的同意。该协议应确定社会对话委员会的组成、其成员的任职方式、任期、会议的频率、如果需要，雇员可以为委员会贡献多长时间、委员会实现其宗旨所需的物质或财政手段、以及如何处理费用和代表的旅费和生活津贴等问题。最后一个问题可能不仅是授予特许人关注的一个主要问题，而且也是特许经营人-雇主关注的一个主要方面。由于没有达成这样的协议，该法令规定设立社会对话委员会，其中有几项严格和最低限度的规定，可能会给授予特许人造成不合理的负担。

    一旦成立，内部规则将确切界定社会对话委员会的运作方式（所需的多数人、会议通知和引荐来源、讨论内容的公布等）。

    无事生非？

    社会对话委员会无权调查案件或作出具有约束力的裁决，但社会对话委员会必须让大家知道特许经营者加盟或离开销售关系网的情况，以及“授予特许者的决定，易于影响到特许经营者雇员的数量和结构、工作时间或就业、工作和职业培训条件”。

    社会对话委员会还可就如何改善贯穿整个关系网的条件提出建议。

    社会对话委员会的影响终究相当有限，但授予特许人必须认真掌握和控制规则的实施，以避免损失自己的特许经营商的时间和精力以及关系网的混乱。

    地域封锁是一种歧视性做法，由于客户的国籍或其居住地或营业地，阻止客户（主要是网上客户）从另一欧盟成员国的网站获取和（或）购买产品或服务。

    欧盟条例在2018年2月28日颁布的关于解决基于客户国籍、居住地或营业地在国内市场上的不合理的地域封锁和其他形式的歧视的欧盟第2018/302号条例将于2018年12月2日生效。

    当前情况

    欧盟委员会对欧盟的1万多个电子商务网站进行了“秘密购物”调查。地域封锁指数相当高！63%的网站不允许购物者从另一个欧盟国家购买商品（甚至包括86%的家用电器和79%的电子和计算机硬件）。

    另一方面，当电子商务的价值和数量就全球来说，年复一年地大幅增长时，只有50%的欧洲客户从设在另一个欧盟成员国的网上商店购买产品，但这种现象只是在国内范围而非整个欧洲。

    2017年6月23日，欧洲理事会要求切实执行数字单一市场战略的所有内容，包括跨界交付、消费者保护和禁止不当地域封锁。

    现行法律框架的缺失

    欧洲联盟指令（欧盟第2006/123/CE号指令）和TFUE第101条已经解决了基于国籍、地区或住所或营业地的歧视做法。

    根据欧盟指令第20(2)条，欧盟成员国必须确保专业人员不因客户的居住地、营业所或国籍而区别对待（客观例外情况除外）。另一方面，关于纵向限制的欧盟竞争法(《欧盟运行条例》第101条和集体豁免条例及其指南)认为，对被动销售的限制是违反欧盟竞争规则的核心限制。然而，这两套规则(欧盟指令和竞争法框架)在实践中似乎并不完全有效。

    在这方面，欧盟委员会在最近关于电子商务部门竞争调查的报告中表明，地域封锁尤其在欧洲电子商务部门内得到了大规模使用。

    地域封锁条例的目的

    地域封锁条例的目的是防止专业人员在处理跨国界电子商务交易时，基于国籍、居住地或客户营业地而实施的直接或间接歧视。

    地域封锁条例的范围

    新的条例将只适用于企业与最终用户或企业之间的网上销售。

    新条例将适用于在欧盟内运作的网站或在欧盟以外运作但向设立在欧盟内的客户提供货物或服务的网站。

    电子网站的管理新规是什么？

    关于访问网站的问题

    根据该条例，企业不得以与互联网用户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的理由，通过使用技术措施来阻止或限制其进入网络接口。然而，只要客户明确同意，并且仍然可以轻松访问他们原先试图访问的网站版本，企业就有权将客的访问方向改变到他们试图访问的网站之外的另一个网站。

    关于网站的销售条款和条件

    该规则禁止企业在下列三种情况下，根据客户的国籍、居住地或营业地（特别是他们的IP地址），提供不同的一般条件来取得货物或服务：

    提供送货服务的企业将售出的商品送达到另外的欧盟成员国交付（或在企业与客户共同商定的地点收取货物）的；

    企业提供的电子化服务，如云、数据存储、主机服务等。（但不提供访问受版权保护的内容的服务，如流媒体或在线游戏服务）；

    顾客获得的在各个国家均可运行的商务服务（如汽车租赁和旅馆住宿服务或体育或文化活动的票务服务）。

    关于网站上的付款方式

    该条例禁止企业以与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地、支付账户所在地或支付服务提供者的设立地有关的理由，对已接受的支付手段适用不同的支付条件（条件是必须符合认证要求，付款交易必须以企业接受的货币进行）。

    这项规定对电子零售商有什么影响？

    尽管在形式上被排除在该条例范围之外，但供应商与分销商或批发商之间的关系仍将受到该条例的影响，因为根据分销商之间的协议规定，分销商承诺不进行被动销售（例如，阻止或限制进入网站），由于与客户的国籍、居住地或营业地有关的原因“将自动无效”。

    因此，地域封锁条例对分销商的影响是双重的：第一，在与客户（最终用户或用户企业）的关系中产生直接影响；第二，在其根据独家分销协议所承担的义务方面产生间接影响。

    地域封锁条例必须与现行竞争法框架相协调，特别是与制定适用于网上销售的具体规则的纵向限制指导方针相协调。网上销售被比作被动销售。指导方针中提到4个实践中为了间接保证地方保护主义，在供应商和独家分销商同意的情况下被禁止的例子：

    独家经销商应阻止另一地区的客户访问其网站，或自动将其转到供应商或其他经销商的网站，

    如果买方的信用卡数据显示买方不是独家经销商的专有区域，独家经销商应终止网上销售。

    限制独家分销商通过互联网销售的份额（但合同可规定按绝对值计算的最低线下目标，并规定与离线销售相比，网上销售保持一致）。

    独家分销商对在互联网上销售的货物支付的价格，应高于对准备在离线销售的货物支付的价格。

    制造商将必须决定是采用一个独一无二的欧洲门户网站报价还是多个地方商业报价，众所周知，每个范畴的客户端是有可能存在价格差异的。

    事实上，新规定并没有强制电子零售商协调其价格政策，它们只是必须允许欧盟消费者自由和容易地访问其网站的任何版本。同样，该条例并没有规定电子零售商必须将产品运往欧洲各地，而只是允许欧盟消费者从他们想要的任何网站购买商品，并在必要时自行安排发货。

    最后，在更为契约性的层面上，尚不十分清楚新的地域封锁规则如何直接或间接地影响适用于消费者合同的冲突法规则，根据罗马第1号规定(Rome I Regulation)，特别是在允许消费者在本网站所在国的外国网站上购买产品时（这意味着在消费者所在国无特定交货制度已建立。）

    因此，B2C网站的一般条款和条件需要在营销和法律两方面进行审查和调整。

    France has for long been seen as a “social trap” by foreign investors… and it was often right.

    The last few months have been dedicated to change this, in order to secure more employers, and allow more flexibility (in a negotiated framework) within companies.

    On the 14th of February, the Senate has ratified what we call the “Macron” decrees that were issued at the end of September.

    Below, a summary of what you need to know in 8 points.

    1 – More flexibility in the motivation of dismissal letters

    In France, dismissals must be justified. However, to reduce litigation and convictions of employers linked to lack of motives, it is now provided that:

    • Before referring to the Judge, employees might ask their employer for more explanation on what the allegations against them are, this to defuse conflict and promote dialogue.
    • If the employee did not ask for more explanations, the dismissal will not be judged unjustified for a lack of motives but only an irregularity of procedure might be retained (giving an entitlement to a maximum of 1 month salary as damages).
    • The employer might, if asked by their employee or at their own initiative, explain more into details the reason for termination, and this explanation will be taken into account by the Judges in case of litigation (when before, only what was written in the dismissal letter was taken into account without any possibility to give any further explanation).

    The time-limit to challenge a dismissal is moreover reduced to 12 months (vs 2 years before) with an aim to rapidly secure the situations.

    2 – Some changes in redundancies

    At last, a glimmer of hope for employers belonging to an International group: the perimeter of appreciation of the economic reason which is required to make someone redundant, is now restrained to the national territory (except for fraud).

    It means that an investor abroad who has financial difficulties on the French territory can, from now on, decide redundancies even if the other companies of the group abroad make profit.

    Also, the research for redeployment shall take place within the French territory only and not in the whole group outside France.

    3 – Damages scales

    In matter of dismissal without any substantial grounds, a compulsory statutory scale is included in the Labour Code.

    These new provisions are applicable to any dismissal issued after the 25th of September.

    The maximum allowance is set at 20 months of gross salary for someone having 29 years’ seniority or more when being unfairly dismissed.

    4 – Termination Indemnity

    For all the terminations decided by an employer or for any agreed termination concluded after the 25th of September, the legal indemnity is now:

    • 1/4 of gross salary per year of presence for the 10 first years of seniority,
    • 1/3 of gross salary per year of presence for more than 10 years of seniority.

    Moreover, the minimum seniority required is lowered, from one year to eight months continuous seniority to be able to benefit from this legal termination indemnity.

    5 – Home Working

    Companies who want to organize work from home (other than occasional) must implement it by a collective agreement or a company charter, specifying the eligible positions to this work mode, the working conditions, etc. If telework is refused, the employer shall explain the reasons for refusal to the employee.

    On the contrary, for an occasional work from home, only the parties’ agreement is required without any formality or financial compensation.

    6 – Merger of staff representatives in a unique Social and Economic Committee

    Until recently, French companies have had Workers’ Representatives (“Délégués du Personnel”), Work’s Council (“Comité d’Entreprise”), Health, Safety and Working Conditions Committee (“CHSCT”) depending on the company’s workforce. Sometimes, these Committees were linked one to another or sometimes just merged.

    This implied a complexity and often an obligation for the employer to officially hold several meetings on the same topic with different representatives (no matter if those meetings had the same elected members or not).

    Now this is simplified: as soon as companies reach the number of 11 employees on their payroll, they have to implement an Economic and Social Committee (CSE). Its missions and resources are more or less important depending if the threshold of 50 employees is reached or not.

    A Company’s agreement might as well enforce the fact that this CSE will also have the power to negotiate agreements (instead of the Unions) and will from now on be named Company Council (inspired by Germany).

    7 – Larger possibilities to negotiate Company’s own rules, even if these rules do not comply with Branch Agreements

    The announced revolution took place: the Company’s Collective Agreements now prevail over the branch agreements as a general rule (even if some clauses of the Branch Collective Agreements should still be respected).

    A brand new occasion for employers to grab this opportunity and to adapt and customize the rules of the game for the needs of their company and their employees, renegotiating for example bonuses (seniority bonus, vacation bonus, …) or some aspects of working time.

    Specific working conditions can also be negotiated if they are necessary to the well-functioning of the company.

    8 – Opening of company‘s negotiations to the small companies without staff representatives

    In companies with less than 50 employees, possibilities to negotiate are now on larger, to allow the managers to negotiate with staff representatives or with employees if there is no Union in the company.

    An agreement can be concluded directly with the employees who approve the agreement draft by referendum, especially, in companies with less than 20 employees and without any staff representatives.

    Wide possibilities are therefore now open to companies in France, no matter the size, the absence of unions, or the branch of activity, as long as they are willing to negotiate with their personnel.

    众所周知，法国法律对执行国际仲裁裁决（特别是在法国境外作出的仲裁裁决）极为有利。如果对方当事人在法国拥有资产，这个法院应相应地把它视为一项优先事项。

    下文介绍了为在法国执行国际仲裁裁决而采取的必要步骤。请注意，所述的某些步骤只是潜在的，取决于另一方可能抵制执行的意愿。

    步骤 1: 获取司法确认

    该裁决被提交给巴黎民事法院（Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris）的首席法官，由他决定是否给予司法确认。没有要归档的简报。

    首席法官的答复所需的时间因法院的工作量和他能否出庭而大不相同。不过，在特殊紧急情况下，总可以与办事员在办公室商讨，来处理紧急事宜。

    在实际操作中，需要下列文件才能继续工作：裁决的原件或经核证的副本、裁决的经认证的译文、仲裁协议的副本以及每份文件的经认证的副本和一份补充副本。

    步骤2：保护司法确认

    如果批准或拒绝司法确认，可在其裁决开始后一个月内向巴黎上诉法院提出上诉。如果上诉方在国外注册或有住所，则可申请额外的距离延期。

    如果批准司法确认，对方当事人往往试图以《法国民事诉讼法》（«CCP»）第1520条的限制理由质疑该裁决在法国的可执行性，理由通常是：

    • 仲裁庭错误地支持或无管辖权，
    • 仲裁庭的组成不规范，
    • 仲裁庭作出的裁决未与诉讼请求保持一致，
    • 违反了正当程序要求，或
    • 该裁决的承认或执行将违反法国的国际公共政策。

    在目前的司法环境中，令人感兴趣的是巴黎上诉法院的新的判例法，允许对仲裁庭在所谓的贿赂案件中的事实调查结果进行有限的修订（见AD newsflash）。

    在提出上诉后，对方当事人必须在3个月内就上诉提交完整的意见书，被告自上诉人提交上诉书的日期起，有3个月的时间来答复上诉人（新的延误按照自2017年9月生效的2017年5月6日的改革）。

    提出附加的意见书，额外增加一套是常见的做法，而且一次听审通常安排在上诉人向法院提出初步声明后18个月左右进行。

    必须指出的是，在这类诉讼中，已准予执行裁决的裁决在法国仍然具有可执行性，因此，除非被告向法院提出中止执行的具体申请，否则该裁决的受益人在继续获取利益的过程中将不存任何障碍。（《刑事诉讼法》第1526条）

    步骤3：维护裁决的即时可执行性（可能）

    为了把不公正地损害被执行裁决的一方的特殊情况考虑在内，《刑事诉讼法》保留在特殊情况下请求上诉法院中止执行裁决的可能性。

    在这种情况下，债务人必须证明，强制执行将对其权利造成严重的有害后果（第1526条2款）。符合的标准是限制性的。当裁决的受益人是一家外国公司时，通常会要求将款项提存，而不是立即转给受益人，理由是如果对方当事人对执行令的上诉胜诉，它将很难收回资金。

    这些程序通常会被加快(在1个月或2个月内进行审理)。对方当事人在对司法确认令提出上诉后立即提出请求。根据听证日期，需要迅速提交一份简要答复。

    步骤4：扣押资产

    扣押资金

    在收到司法确认令后，执达吏可下令扣押在法国银行账户中的任何资金。

    该过程是一个“saisie-attribution”，以下简称“扣押”。执达吏得到指示，前往有关银行总部，通知银行扣押与裁决相对应的款项。

    请注意，法国执达吏可以访问一个名为FICOBA的特定文件，该文件向他们提供债务人的开户银行的名称。

    一旦执达吏要求银行提供资金，银行就有义务提供可用资金的详细资料。大多数银行会在同一天被组织起来答执达吏的要求。

    一旦执达吏对资金执行扣押，该款项即被视为债权人的财产，债务人不得使用。这可能使债务人的业务陷于瘫痪，因此建议谨慎行使扣押。

    然后在8天内将扣押通知债务人。

    这些资金仍然处于冻结状态，以便债务人提出潜在的质疑（1个月）。

    扣押其他种类的资产

    当然，可以根据法国法律扣押其他各种资产（不动产、公司股票、债券等）。扣押金通常是最容易的。

    步骤5：对方当事人对扣押的质疑（可能）

    在收到扣押通知后一个月内，被扣押方有权向执行官（“Juge de l’exécution”或“JEX”）提出质疑。

    对方当事人可以提出的论点通常涉及扣押本身，并且不涉及司法确认令的有效性，因为其他程序可出于这一目的。

    在JEX之前通常需要交换几份辩护状和举行一场听证会。

    可以对JEX的决定提出上诉。上诉并不妨碍执行。但是，存在特别程序要求上诉法院在某些条件下中止执行（有明显过分的后果）。

    总之，这一过程相当简单明了，即使债务人有合法的追索权，而且上述措施可能显得相当具有技术性。一旦债权人获得了司法确认，潜在的公共力量就会自然而然地被给予债权人。

    请注意，尽管众所周知，法国法院在判决法律费用方面并不慷慨，但有些判决在这一领域已经用了大量款项（例如，在CA Paris，26日9月2017年的60万欧元，第16/15338号）因此，在成功的情况下，强制执行的费用由债务人承担。

    这篇文章的作者是Flore Poloni

    If you want to develop your distribution network abroad, a network of commercial agents is the easiest way, and France is no exception. Before entering into an agency  contract ruled by French law, it is nevertheless advisable to know its main features, which will be discussed in this post. 

    Definition

    A commercial agent is a professional representative who negotiates and eventually concludes contracts in the name of and on behalf of his principal.

    The French Commercial Code (Article L134-1) defines a commercial agent precisely as:

    «L’agent commercial est défini comme un mandataire qui, à titre de profession indépendante, sans être lié par un contrat de louage de services, est chargé, de façon permanente, de négocier et, éventuellement, de conclure des contrats de vente, d’achat, de location ou de prestation de services, au nom et pour le compte de producteurs, d’industriels de commerçants ou d’autres agents commerciaux.»

    «The commercial agent is an agent who, as an independent professional, without being bound by an employment contract, is in a permanent position to negotiate and eventually to enter into contracts for the sale, purchase, rent/hire or performance of service in the name and on behalf of manufacturers, industrialists, traders or other commercial agents.»

    The definition shows that the agent is independent: he/she is free to organise his/her own employment activity and business (sole agency, limited company etc.). This notion is fundamental, because the more the agent will be present and active in the organisation of the principal activity, the more the contract will be at risk of being requalified as a VRP (employee contract of sales representative) contract by the courts.

    In the spirit of the contractual relationship and in the drafting of the contract itself, one must be very careful not to confuse an agent with a VRP since, according to French law, the latter is considered an employee, with greater rights and compensation for termination of contract.

    Requirements

    The agent must be registered in the register of commercial agents at the Registry of the Commercial Court at his place of domicile. 

    Contract form

    The written form is not mandatory but strongly recommended. Article L134-2 of the Commercial Code provides that each party may request both the contract and addenda to be in writing.

    Execution of the contract – important clauses

    • Duration: for a fixed period or indefinite.
    • Fee: a commission freely defined between the parties.
    • Territory: it is very important to define the territory with precision and avoid wide generic clauses such as “world”.
    • Exclusive: the clause must specify whether the exclusivity is in relation to the territory and/or on the clientele in a precise manner and if the principal reserves the right to intervene.
    • Notice of withdrawal (Article L134-11, paragraph 3 of the Commercial Code): 1 month for the first year, 2 months for the second year, 3 months thereafter.

    Post-contract – important clauses

    Post-contractual non-competition clauses (Article L134-14 of the Commercial Code) must be in written form and limited to a maximum of 2 years post-contract.

    The non-competition clauses restriction (territory, customers, products) must not be so restrictive as to prohibit the agent from working after the end of the contract. Therefore customers and products included in the agreement must be competitors of the type of goods subject of the agency contract. Otherwise, the courts will consider the clause as null and non-existent, entitling the agent to claim compensation.

    French law does not provide any compensation for compliance with this clause.

    After termination of the contract, the agent is entitled to an indemnity for termination as compensation (Article L134-12 of the Commercial Code). It is a rule of public order, therefore, the clause that provides for an exemption of this entitlement will be considered null and non-existent.

    The agent has one year to assert this right to severance indemnity.

    There is no requirement of keeping it in writing, however, it is advisable to write a notice of receipt as proof of the termination.

    The amount of the compensation is equal to two years of commissions (gross) received by the agent. This is to be seen as a maximum measure and it is up to the principal to prove the reason as to why the agent should be entitled to a lower compensation.

    In the event of litigation, the courts will at their discretion evaluate the amount of the request of a maximum of two years.

    Cases in which compensation is not due:

    • Assignment of the contract to another agent;
    • Termination of the contract by the agent;
    • Serious non-fulfilment of the contract by the agent.

    Serious breach of contract can result from the non-fulfilment of clauses that are defined in the contract as important or must be assessed from time to time with the advice of your lawyer.

    Focus: the termination of contract due to retirement

    The agent is entitled to the indemnity for termination as compensation also when he/she ceases the activity and retires.

    French jurisprudence (in particular the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation), however, requires a more specific check of the reason for the termination of the contract: the agent must not only claim to be entitled to the retirement pension, he should also assert he is not in physical conditions to be able to work anymore.

    Which is the competent French court?

    Even if the agent is a trading company, the nature of the contract is still civil. By virtue of this, the competent court varies according to the person who brings the claim.

    If the agent is the claimant, he can choose between “tribunal de grande instance” and “tribunal de commerce”.

    If, on the other hand, the principal is the claimant, he must also begin the claim before the “tribunal de grande instance”.

    If your business is related to France or you wish to develop your business in this direction, you need to be aware of one very specific provision with regards to the termination of a business relationship.

    Article L. 442-6, I, 5° of the French Commercial Code protects a party to a contract who considers that the other party has terminated the existing business relationship in a sudden and abrupt way, thus causing her a damage.

    This is a ‘public policy’ provision and therefore any contractual provision to the contrary will be unenforceable.

    Initially, the lawmaker aimed to protect any business relationship between suppliers and major large-scale retailers delisting (ie, removing a supplier’s products that were referenced by a distributor) at the moment of contracts renegotiations or renewals.

    Eventually, the article has been drafted in order to extend its scope to any business relationship, regardless of the status of the professionals involved and the nature of the commercial relationship.

    The party who wishes to terminate the business relationship does not need to provide any justification for her actions but must send a sufficient prior notice to the other party.

    The purpose is to allow the parties, and in particular the abandoned party, to anticipate the discharge of the contract, in particular in cases of economic dependency.

    It is an accentuated obligation of loyalty.

    There are only two cases strictly interpreted by case law in which the partner is exempted from sending a prior notice:

    • an aggravated breach of a contractual obligation;
    • a frustration or a force majeure.

    There are two main requirements to be fulfilled in order to be able to invoke this provision in front of a judge – an established business relationship and an abrupt termination.

    The judge will assess whether the requirements have been fulfilled on a case by case basis.

    What does the term ‘established business relationship’ mean?

    The most important criterion is the duration, whether a written contract exists or not.

    A relationship may be considered as long-term whether there is a single contract or a few consecutive contracts.

    If there is no contract in place, the judge will take into account the following criteria:

    • the existence of a long-term established business relationship;
    • the good faith of the parties;
    • the frequency of the transactions and the importance and evolving of the turnover;
    • any agreement on the prices applied and/or the discounts granted to the other party;
    • any correspondence exchanged between the parties.

    What does the term ‘abrupt termination’ mean?

    The Courts consider the application of Article L442-6-I 5° if the termination is “unforeseeable, sudden and harsh”.

    The termination must comply with the following three conditions in order to be considered as abrupt:

    • with no prior notice or with insufficient prior notice;
    • sudden;
    • unpredictable.

    To consider whether a prior notice is sufficient, a judge may consider the following criteria:

    • the investments made by the victim of the termination;
    • the business involved (eg seasonal fashion collections);
    • a constant increase in turnover;
    • the market recognition of the products sold by the victim and the difficulty of finding replacement products;
    • the existence of a post-contractual non-compete undertaking ;
    • the existence of exclusivity between the parties;
    • the time period required for the victim to find other openings or refocus the business activity;
    • the existence of any economic dependency for the victim.

    The courts have decided that a partial termination may also be considered as abrupt in the following cases:

    • an organisational change in the distribution structure of the supplier;
    • a substantial decrease in trade flows;
    • a change in pricing terms or an increase in prices without any prior notice sent by a supplier granting special prices to the buyers, or in general any unilateral and substantial change in the contract terms.

    Whatever the justification for the termination, it is necessary to send a registered letter with an acknowledgment of receipt and ensure that the prior notice is sent sufficienlty in advance (some businesses have specific time periods applicable to them by law).

    Compensation for a damage

    The French Commercial Code provides for the award of damages in order to compensate a party for an abrupt termination of a business relationship.

    The damages are calculated by multiplying the notice period which should have been applied by the average profit achieved prior to the termination. Such profit is evaluated based on the pre-tax gross margin that would have been achieved during the required notice period, had sufficient notice been given.

    The courts may also award damages for incidental and consequential losses such as redundancy costs, losses of scheduled stocks, operational costs, certain unamortised investments and restructuring costs, indemnities paid to third parties or even image or reputational damage.

    International law

    The French supreme court competent in civil law (‘Cour de cassation’) considers that in cases where the decision to terminate the business relationship and the resulting damage take place in two different countries, it is a matter of torts and the applicable law will be the one of the country where the triggering event the most closely connected with the tort took place. Therefore the abrupt termination will be subject to French law if the business of the supplier is located in France.

    However, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued a preliminary ruling dated 14 July 2016 answering two questions submitted by the Paris Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 17 April 2015. A French company had been distributing in France the food products of an Italian company for the last 25 years, with no framework agreement or any exclusivity provision in place. The Italian company had terminated the business relationship with no prior notice. The French company issued proceedings against the Italian company in front of the French courts and invoked the abrupt termination of an established business relationship.

    The Italian company opposed both the jurisdiction of the French courts and the legal ground for the action arguing that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the action involved contract law and was therefore subject to the laws of the country where the commodities had been or should have been delivered, in this case Incoterm Ex-works departing from the plant in Italy.

    The CJEU has considered that in case of a tacit contractual relationship and pursuant to European law, the liability will be based on contract law (in the same case, pursuant to French law, the liability will be based on torts). As a consequence, Article 5, 3° of the Regulation (EC) 44/2001, also known as Brussels I (which has been replaced by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012, also known as Brussels I bis) will not apply. Therefore, the competent judge will not be the one of the country where the damage occurred but the one of the country where the contractual obligation was being performed.

    In addition and answering the second question submitted to it, the CJEU has considered that the contract is:

    • a contract for the sale of goods if its purpose is the delivery of goods, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the goods have been or should have been delivered; and
    • a contract for services if its purpose is the provision of services, in which case the competent jurisdiction will be the one of the country where the services have been or should have been provided.

    In this case, the Paris Court of Appeal will have to recharacherise the contractual relationship either as consecutive contracts for the sale of goods and deduct the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, or as a contract for services implying the participation of the distributor in the development and the distribution of the supplier’s goods and business strategy and deduct the jurisdiction of the French courts.

    In summary, in case of an intra-Community dispute, the distributor who is the victim of an abrupt termination of an established business relationship cannot issue proceedings based on torts in front of a court in the country where the damage occurred if there is a tacit contractual relationship with the supplier. In order to determine the competent jurisdiction in such case, it is necessary to determine whether such tacit contractual relationship consists of a supply of goods or a provision of services.

    The next judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal and those of the Cour de cassation to come need to be followed very closely.

    Less than one year from now, on May 25, 2018, the new European Regulation on the protection of personal data (EU) 2016/679 will come into force. Whatever its size or business activity, every company has to process personal data files at some point.

    The new sanctions provide a strong incentive to prepare organisations for compliance with the new legal framework in twelve months’ time.

    Non-European undertakings must also be particularly careful regarding these new measures, the principal aspects of which are summarised below.

    Extraterritorial application

    The Regulation applies to personal data processing when the controller is established on the territory of the European Union.

    If the controller is not established in the European Union, the Regulation applies when data processing involves persons situated within the European Union and when the processing is linked to the offering of goods or services to such persons.  Non-EU companies must appoint a representative for this purpose.

    The right to data portability and appointment of a DPO

    This new right enables a person to recover the data that he has supplied in a form that is easily reusable, such as a USB key for example. Companies must get organised in order to be able to satisfy these portability requirements.

    Appointment of a Data Protection Officer

    Companies must appoint a DPO (Data Protection Officer), successor to the CIL (Correspondant Informatique et Libertés) who is appointed based on his professional skills (legal and technical), his independence and his accessibility in order to ensure compliance.

    We would like to point out that a specialist lawyer should be authorised to carry out this role provided relevant Bar rules do not prevent it.

    Sanctions

    These measures must imperatively be respected at the risk of seeing heavy sanctions imposed.

    Depending on the category of infraction, these sanctions may amount to:

    • 10 to 20 million euro; or
    • 2% to 4% of annual world revenues,

    The higher of the above two amounts is applied.

    Recommendations

    To ensure that your practices comply with the new legislation, it is necessary to:

    • Set in motion an internal project dedicated to compliance with the new legislation within the next 9 months;
    • Anticipate the obligations specified by the Regulation;
    • Budget for the right to data portability and the position of DPO;
    • Organise, for SME, the sharing of the DPO position with other companies.

    The author of this post is Thierry Aballéa.