Chapter I: Liability

Any natural or legal person forming an undertaking or a body referred to in Article L. 464-2 is liable for the damage it has caused as a result of the commission of an anti-competitive practice defined in articles L. 420-1, L. 420-2, L. 420-2-1, L. 420-2-2 and L. 420-5 and Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

An anti-competitive practice referred to in Article L. 481-1 is irrevocably presumed to have been established with regard to the natural or legal person designated in the same Article once its existence and its imputation to that person have been established by a decision which may no longer be subject to an ordinary appeal procedure for the part relating to that establishment, pronounced by the Competition Authority or by the…

The loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the anti-competitive practice referred to in Article L. 481-1 includes in particular: 1° The loss made, resulting : a) The additional cost corresponding to the difference between the price of the good or service that he actually paid and the price that would have been paid in the absence of the commission of the infringement, subject to the total or…

The direct or indirect purchaser, whether of goods or services, is deemed not to have passed on the extra cost to its direct contractors, unless the defendant, the perpetrator of the anti-competitive practice, proves to the contrary that it has done so in whole or in part.

A direct or indirect purchaser, whether of goods or services, who claims to have suffered the application or repercussion of an additional cost must prove its existence and extent. However, the indirect purchaser, whether of goods or services, shall be deemed to have provided proof of such passing-on where it proves that: 1° The defendant has committed an anti-competitive practice referred to in Article L. 481-1; 2° This practice resulted…

The rules of evidence set out in articles L. 481-4 and L. 481-5 are applicable to the direct or indirect suppliers of the perpetrator of the anti-competitive practice who claim prejudice resulting from a reduction in the price of the goods or services concerned by this practice.

It is presumed until proven otherwise that an agreement between competitors causes harm.