A commercial court case involving unfair competitive activities and provisional execution under French law.
Extract
[...] Having provisionally executed the decision, she inevitably suffered financial losses due to the cessation of her activity. The Court of Cassation has established that in the event of the decision being set aside, the creditor may be condemned to repair the prejudice caused by the provisional execution (Cass. civ. 3e October 1979). Thus, Mr. Lépicier is under the obligation to repair the damage caused to Mrs. Lapothicaire by the provisional execution of the decision in which he was the creditor. [...]
[...] The penalty has a double character. The first is the personal character, so that only the beneficiary of the obligation can request its liquidation (Cass. civ December 2011, n°10-26.337). The second is the accessory character, that is to say it is an accessory measure intended to ensure the execution of a conviction, therefore as soon as the conviction is annulled, it is also (Cass. civ. 2e September 2015, No. 14-14.977). In this case, the referring judge imposed a fine intended to ensure the condemnation he had pronounced, namely that Mrs. [...]
[...] Thus, Madame Lapothicaire was under the obligation to cease her activity in order not to be forced to pay the fine that could be liquidated upon the request of Mr. Lépicier, and this despite the appeal she had lodged, due to the provisional execution. II. On the provisional execution Since the decree of 11 December 2019, entered into force on 1he as of January 2020, all civil decisions of first instance are provisionally enforceable by right (article 514 of the CPC), unless the judge sets them aside due to their incompatibility with the case (article 514-1 of the CPC). [...]
[...] Assignment and Provisional Execution CASE PRACTICE : ASSIGNMENT AND PROVISIONAL EXECUTION Mr. Lépicier has filed a petition with the commercial court referee judge to order Mrs. Lapothicaire to cease all unfair competitive activities, and this, under a penalty. The referee judge granted this request by ordering her to remove elements allowing her activity, and this under a penalty of 500 euros per day of delay from the date of notification of the order, which was notified by the applicant. The defendant has spontaneously ceased her activity and has appealed the order, which was reformed 3 years later. [...]
