Extract
[...] Although the assignor violated the non-competition clause, the growth of La Pizzeria's sales weighed in the decision to limit damages to 60,000 euros. This moderate amount raises questions about the consideration of the long-term effects of the violation, including customer loyalty. This lack of rigor in the analysis of the evidence constitutes a weakness in the Court of Appeal's decision, as a correct evaluation of the accounting documents could have made it possible to better understand the extent of the damage, whether economic or moral. [...]
[...] Thus, the compensation for economic loss can be understood, as it aims to compensate for the loss of customers or the decrease in turnover resulting from unfair competition. However, in this case, the Court of Cassation criticizes the Court of Appeal for not having sufficiently examined whether the behaviors reproached to the assignor and the SARL Reine Victoria constituted a sufficiently serious disturbance to trigger moral damage. In fact, the Court estimates that the potential impact of these acts on the brand image and the proper functioning of the company should have been analyzed in depth to determine the existence of moral damage. [...]
[...] The European Court of Human Rights, for example, ruled that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the field of protection of the home, are applicable to the head office of a company (ECHR April 2002). This jurisprudential evolution is particularly justified in sectors where reputation is a major commercial asset. For a company like La Pizzeria, an attack on its reputation can lead to a loss of trust from customers or business partners, which can directly affect its performance economic. In recognizing this type of damage, the Court of Cassation allows companies to fully protect their intangible assets, essential to their activity. [...]
[...] The main question posed to the Court of Cassation was whether a legal entity can claim moral damage following a breach of a non-compete clause. The Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision of 15 May 2012, partially overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal, stating that a legal entity can indeed suffer moral damage. It therefore sent the case back to the Court of Appeal of Toulouse to re-examine the damages, taking into account both economic and moral damages. [...]
[...] Ripert Legal Aspects of Modern Capitalism, LGDJ n°37). Being devoid of feelings, legal persons cannot invoke emotional or heartfelt pain. The Cour de cassation, in a judgment of March had affirmed that these entities cannot claim an infringement of their private life, since this is a prerogative exclusively reserved for physical persons. In the case brought before the Pau Court of Appeal, the latter had quickly dismissed the idea of moral damage for the company. However, the Cour de cassation, in its decision, challenges this restrictive approach by quashing the judgment on this specific point. [...]
