Payment deadlines

In a previous Point Cardinal, we highlighted the high risk of inspections and fines for exceeding legal payment deadlines, which are published on the DGCCRF website (fines of €1,000 to €1.8 million in recent months).

We draw your attention to four recent developments on this subject.

1/ Publication by the DGCCRF of its Guidelines for determining penalties for exceeding interprofessional payment deadlines (December 2, 2021)

• these Guidelines are succinct, and do not really provide the objective analysis grid expected in terms of determining the amount of the fine,

(…)

• the DGGCCRF indicates on page 4 §1 that the main criterion for determining the fine is the amount of cash withheld generated by the breaches, corresponding to a gain in working capital requirements. It indicates the method of calculation of said gain ([amount of the invoice × number of days late] / number of days in the period checked), the result of which is then adjusted taking into account in particular the size of the company, in depending on the size of its turnover, and the relative importance of the delay in relation to the regulations,

(…)

2/ Two decisions reducing the fine set by the DGCCRF

• CAA Bordeaux, December 17, 2021: The court reduced the amount of €350,000 pronounced by the Direccte and confirmed by the administrative court, to reduce it to €112,500 corresponding to 30% of the maximum penalty incurred. Most of the appeal judgments published to date tended rather to reverse the few judgments that reduced the fine (see below 3/), on the grounds that (…)
• TA Bordeaux, November 2, 2021: the court reduced the amount of €225,000 pronounced by the Direccte to reduce it to €56,250, and reduced the duration of publication of the sanction to 3 months (instead of 12), (…)

3/ An example of an appeal judgment confirming the amount set by the administration

• CAA Paris, October 14, 2021: the court upheld the amount of €250,000 pronounced by the Direccte and confirmed by the administrative court, noting in particular that the penalty was not disproportionate.

Species data: (…)

For further details: contact@richelieuavocats.com