No Tunisian law fixes a universal notice period, and yet the abrupt rupture of a partner remains one of the costliest disputes for a business leader. Between contractual good faith, abuse of economic dependence, and the calculation of lost profits, the terrain is more protective than it may seem, provided you know how to mobilize it.
A right to terminate, but under control
Tunisia does not have a single, overarching law on distribution: judges rely on the Commercial Code and the Code of Obligations and Contracts (COC), and there is no statutory notice fixed for terminating or not renewing a distribution contract.
The COC offers three footholds for the ousted party. Article 242 makes the contract the law of the parties, revocable only by mutual consent or in cases provided by law. Article 243 imposes performance in good faith, with the consequences that custom and equity attach to the obligation. Article 103 binds the party who exercises their right to a damage that is notable and that could have been avoided without significant inconvenience.
In practice, a judge may award damages when the rupture is in bad faith or abusive, notably without notice in a long-standing relationship. A notice period of 30 to 90 days is generally expected, more so if the distributor has made substantial investments.
Abuse of economic dependence
Article 5 of Law No. 36 of 2015 targets the abusive exploitation of a client’s or supplier’s dependence on a solution alternative. It expressly cites the termination of commercial relations without valid reason, or solely on the ground that the partner refuses abusive commercial terms. Any clause relating to these practices is null and void by operation of law.
The financial risk is real. Penalties from the Competition Council can reach 10% of turnover achieved in Tunisia. The institution remains active: three decisions issued on December 31, 2025 imposed 4.2 million dinars in fines under Article 5, including 1.2 million in the pharmaceutical sector and 2.5 million in smartphones.
Two caveats apply. The Ministry of Trade recalls that abuse is sanctioned only if it hinders competition, with a causal link required between dependence and the practice. Moreover, appeals to the Administrative Tribunal last on average five to ten years, whereas the law anticipated one year. This route thus serves as leverage for pressure, rarely as a shortcut to compensation.
The qualification governs the indemnity
