Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-03-09; 1ère Civ., 9 mars 2022, pourvoi n°20-19.078
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100207
Date: 2022-03-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0309(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case, the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) examined if the cour d’appel de Versailles (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it held that persons domiciled in the Republic of Ireland could be sued before the French courts for the repayment of a property loan.
The company Althéa Gestion (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) sued Mr and Mrs R., domiciled in the Republic of Ireland (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’), in the tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), for reimbursement of the outstanding debt.
The Court of Appeal cited Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which provides as follows:
‘1. In matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7, if:
(a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms;
(b) it is a contract for a loan repayable by instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods; or
(c) in all other cases, the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.’
Noting that the loan could not be considered a loan to finance the sale of goods, and that the plaintiffs did not claim that the bank pursued commercial or professional activities in the Republic of Ireland, or directed such activities to that Member State, the Court of Appeal held that the French courts did not have jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. They argued that it fell to the Court of Appeal to assess whether the condition set out in Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was fulfilled.
The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning and set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).