This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (March/April 2026).

This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (January/February 2026).

This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (November/December 2025).

A car manufacturer was bound by three dealership agreements with the same car dealer for three locations (Muret, Toulouse, and Saint-Gaudens). In 2014, the manufacturer and the dealer entered into an initial agreement for the representation of the brand in Saint-Gaudens. Then, in 2016, after acquiring businesses in Muret and Toulouse, the dealer entered into an agreement with the manufacturer for each of the two sites.

At the end of 2018, the manufacturer, dissatisfied with the results in Muret and Toulouse, agreed with the dealer to sell the businesses that the latter had purchased two years earlier to a buyer approved by the manufacturer.

A few days later, in January 2019, the manufacturer terminated the last dealership contract (Saint-Gaudens) by giving two years’ contractual notice.

The dealer argued that the termination was unfair, as the manufacturer had concealed important information from him at the time of the sale of the Toulouse and Muret businesses. Had he known that the Saint-Gaudens dealership agreement would be terminated following the sale of the Muret and Toulouse businesses, he would have negotiated the terms of his overall exit from the network (takeover of stock, compensation for investments made, etc.).

However, the Court of Appeal responded that the termination was not unfair because “neither the contract nor the law requires [the manufacturer] to alert [the dealer] to its decision to terminate the contract prior to giving notice of termination, which already serves an informative purpose.” Furthermore, “there was no evidence that [the manufacturer] had, at the time of the transfers, intended to terminate [the contract].”

Termination with notice is therefore not unfair simply because the car manufacturer, bound by three contracts with a dealer, terminated the last contract a few days after the first two had expired.

The dealer also cited significant investments made in 2015 to meet the brand’s standards in order to claim that the termination was unfair. However, according to the Court, the investments in question did not render the termination unfair, as the terms of the termination were known to the dealer from the outset.

Henry & Bricogne recently supported a company, which is mainly active in automotive distribution and repair, in its takeover of another automotive distribution group. This merger was authorized by the French Competition Authority in August 2025.

A few months ago, Henry & Bricogne assisted a company active in the precast concrete sector that wished to take control of a group active in the same sector. This merger was also authorized by the French Competition Authority in December 2024.

This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (August / October 2025).

This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (May / July 2025).

This newsletter presents a selection of the case law in economic law (March / April 2025).