Territorial jurisdiction for a measure of inquiry in futurum concerning a competition matter

We obtained the withdrawal of a judicial ruling giving the right to a bailiff to seize documents at our client’s regarding a competition matter, based on the fact that the judge who ruled did not have territorial jurisdiction.

A professional who created his own counseling business after he has been “fired” by his business partner.

Our client was accused to be responsible of unfair competition towards his former partner. 

In order to obtain evidence, the foresaid former partner brought a request before the President of the Commercial Court of Lyon for the designation of a bailiff who would have the authority to go to our client’s head office, access the computers and copy files, correspondences and all commercial documents. 

Following the bailiff’s intervention, we submitted a summary request “from hour to hour” to the judge in order to declare that the Court of Lyon was not territorially competent to deliver the authorization to the bailiff.  

The Court of Appeal of Lyon, September 27^th, 2011, as we pointed out, ruled that the jurisdiction enabled to order in futurum measures of inquiry is the one where such measures will be performed, or the one competent on the merits. 

On this last possibility, the Court specified that, either under contractual terms or based on tort law, the place where the unfair competition may have occurred shall be taken into consideration, instead of the place where financial consequences have been experienced, to establish territorial jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal therefore revoked the decision of the President of the Commercial Court of Lyon that was not territorially competent, and, as a consequence, the bailiff’s report was waived.