New twist in the so-called “ham cartel” affair. Fleury Michon, pinned among twelve manufacturers in the ham and charcuterie sector for price agreements between 2010 and 2013, was sanctioned “Up to 100,000 euros” to get “Obstructs the progress of the investigation” carried out by the Competition Authority, according to the latter, Monday, May 3.
Fleury Michon was fined nearly 14.8 million euros in connection with this case, which earned a total of 93 million euros in penalties for many manufacturers, including the French leader in production. porcine, the Cooperl cooperative, or the Les Mousquetaires distribution group (Intermarché, Netto). This sanction, pronounced in July 2020, is the subject of an appeal.
In the context of this affair, Fleury Michon did not “Not informed the investigation services of an internal restructuring operation and the cancellation of the company Fleury Michon Charcuterie, one of the authors of the practices, to whom the grievances had been addressed”, details the Competition Authority in a press release.
The group, which requested and obtained to benefit from the transaction procedure, could thus have prevented the services of the Authority “To identify and monitor with precision the development of legal persons to whom it was appropriate to attribute and notify complaints”.
An article deemed unconstitutional
This announcement is made a few weeks after the Constitutional Council ruled unconstitutional an article of law (L. 464-2) allowing the Competition Authority to impose a significant fine (up to 1% of its turnover). global affairs) to a company that obstructed its investigations, arguing that another article of the Commercial Code, L. 450-8, already provided for it.
The Competition Authority explains Monday that the decision of the Constitutional Council applied to provisions which, “In their contested wording, are no longer in force” as amended by a new law in December 2020.
In addition, Fleury Michon “Had not previously been the subject of legal proceedings on the basis of Article L. 450-8 of the Commercial Code”, she explains. “Consequently, the company in question could be penalized on the basis of Article L. 464-2 of the Commercial Code. “