Jurisprudence

  • Informations concernant l’affaire
    • ID national: Court of Cassation, Judgement 19-16.760
    • État membre: France
    • Nom commun:N/A
    • Type de décision: Décision de la Cour suprême
    • Date de la décision: 16/12/2020
    • Juridiction: Cour de Cassation
    • Objet:
    • Demandeur:
    • Défendeur:
    • Mots clés: unfair competition, unfair commercial practices, advertisement
  • Articles de la directive
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, link
  • Note introductive

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:FR:CCASS:2020:CO00832


    Lidl is condemned for unfair competition for having infringed the ban on television advertising for large retailers. The Court of Cassation considers that the prohibition of television advertising aimed at the mass distribution sector, provided for by the provisions of the decree of 27 March 1992, in their wording applicable to the facts of the dispute, is not directly aimed at protecting the consumer, but at preserving the attractiveness for advertisers.

  • Faits

    The Lidl company, whose business is large-scale distribution in the food, small electrical appliances and DIY sectors, operates a chain of supermarkets in France. ITM Alimentaire International (ITM), accused Lidl of not having complied, between September and November 2015, with the provisions of Article 8 of Decree No. 92-280 of 27 March 1992 prohibiting television advertising for promotional sales in the distribution sector and sued it for damages resulting from unfair commercial practices. The advertisement was found to be misleading for consumers by the Evry Commercial Court and the Paris Court of Appeal, which considered that the "best channel" distinction had not been obtained following a rigorous process, in particular because of the small panel of people consulted to establish this independent ranking.

  • Question juridique

    Did the promotional operations constitute unfair commercial practices?

  • Décision

    In a judgement of 16 December 2020, the Court of Cassation held that the disputed commercial operations were promotional operations whose advertising by television was prohibited by Article 8 of Decree No. 92-280 of 27 March 1992 and considers that the Court of Appeal correctly inferred that Article 8 of the Decree does not aim at consumer protection and does not fall within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 on unfair commercial practices. The Court condemned the company Lidl for unfair competition.

    Texte intégral: Texte intégral

  • Affaires liées

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Doctrine

    Aucun résultat disponible

  • Résultat

    This decision is in line with case law. The provisions of Decree No. 92-280 of 27 March 1992 aimed at preserving the attractiveness, for advertisers, of the various media in relation to television do not fall within the scope of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (You can find the development of this line in the Court of cassation 16/12/2020, Judgement 19-12.820).