In a ruling dated December 3, 2025, the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation considered that a relationship could be regarded as an « established commercial relationship » even if interrupted by several calls for tenders. The highest French court points out that the use of competitive bidding, while introducing an element of uncertainty, is not sufficient to systematically exclude the need of allowing a sufficient prior notice period.
The case concerned a communications service provider whose relationship with a food manufacturer, which began in 2005 and was renewed by tender in 2009, had continued under a 2010 contract that was tacitly renewable.
Although a partial competitive bidding process in 2013 resulted in the service provider losing the management of one brand to a competitor, business continued as usual for the other four brands until the termination was notified at the end of 2019.
Considering that the notice period of approximately four months was insufficient in view of the length of their relationship—and that the 2010 contract had been renewed due to failure to terminate it in time—the service provider sued its client for compensation on the grounds of abrupt termination of established commercial relations.
To rule out the application of Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code, the Paris Court of Appeal held that the succession of calls for tenders – and the failure of the 2013 call for tenders for one of the applicant’s five brands – introduced an element of uncertainty that made the relationship « necessarily precarious. »
The Commercial Chamber rejected this analysis on the grounds that it lacked a legal basis, considering that the reasons given were not sufficient to rule out the classification of an established commercial relationship.
Despite the history of competitive bidding and the partial loss of the business relationship, the contract had been tacitly renewed on an annual basis from 2013 to 2019 for most of the contractual scope.
This analysis confirms that a relationship, even if punctuated by calls for tenders, can be regarded as « established » if it continues on a long-term basis without being called into question, particularly with regard to the volume of business not affected by competitive bidding.
The result is an invitation to assess the stability of the business flow in concreto and in its entirety: this economic reality must prevail over the initial or partial selection method in order to characterize the existence of an abrupt break.
However, the decision leaves open the thorny question of the starting point for seniority. The Court of Cassation does not specify in concrete terms whether it is appropriate to take into account the previous years punctuated by calls for tenders (since 2005) or to limit oneself to the stabilized contractual period (in 2010).
To read more on the matter : lien