Week of 21-27 September 2026
Legislative and case law update in French business law
Legislation
The week of 21 to 27 September 2026 produced no significant text in company law, commercial law, competition law, banking and financial law or insolvency law. On the business side, the Official Journals for the period (JORF Nos. 0222 to 0226) contain only one-off sectoral measures: Decree No. 2026-885 of 23 September 2026 on the third scheme of exceptional aid for public road transport companies, and Decree No. 2026-898 of 26 September 2026, which creates cash-flow aid for fishing businesses. Both texts target specific industries and leave the general rules of business law untouched; they are mentioned here for the record only.
One practical point deserves attention in commercial lease litigation: Decree No. 2026-683 of 27 July 2026, which amends the rules on notification between lawyers before the commercial rent judge, comes into force on 1 October 2026, a few days after the period covered by this note. Firms handling rent-setting or rent-review cases for commercial leases will need to apply the new formal requirements from that date.
Case law
The week is marked by an important judgment of the Commercial Chamber on the powers of the Paris Court of Appeal when it reviews decisions of the French Competition Authority (Autorité de la concurrence). In its judgment of 23 September 2026 (No. 463 FS-B, appeal No. 25-10.066), the Cour de cassation settles an open question: having annulled a decision of the Authority, may the court of appeal keep the case and instruct the Authority’s investigation services to look for the missing evidence, rather than relinquishing jurisdiction? The answer is no where the court considers itself unable to carry out that further investigation; it must then relinquish the case to the Competition Authority.
The case began with a complaint lodged on 15 November 2017 by Towercast against the acquisition of control of Itas Tim by the TDF group on the wholesale market for terrestrial broadcasting, on the basis of abuse of a dominant position (Article L. 420-2 of the French Commercial Code and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The Competition Authority had rejected the complaint in Decision No. 20-D-01 of 16 January 2020. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled that decision on 27 June 2024, then stated on 5 December 2024 that it would not relinquish the case. The Cour de cassation overturns that refusal, on the basis of Article L. 464-8 of the Commercial Code, while upholding the annulment of the Authority’s decision: the appeal brought by the President of the Competition Authority leads to a partial quashing of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, while the appeal brought by Towercast itself is dismissed.
The significance of the ruling is procedural rather than substantive. It says nothing about whether there was an abuse of dominance in this case, but it draws the line between the Paris Court of Appeal’s power to adjudicate and the Competition Authority’s power to investigate. For practitioners in merger and antitrust litigation, the lesson is clear: a court of appeal that annuls a decision of the Authority without being able to rule on the merits itself, for lack of sufficient economic analysis in the file, cannot improvise a further investigation under its own authority. It must refer the case back to the Authority and relinquish jurisdiction.
The firm advises on French business law, including commercial relationships and competition disputes.
Previous edition: Weekly Digest: Business Law (14-21 September 2026)
Our practice: lawyer in French business law