Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-04-13; 1re Civ., 13 avril 2023, pourvoi n° 22-12.965
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100265
Date: 2023-04-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0413(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 Rennes (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it held that an asymmetrical jurisdiction clause was unlawful.
Natural persons ordered construction work from the French company Agora (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which ordered materials from the Italian company SPA Italiana Lastre (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’). Those natural persons sued both the defendant and the plaintiff, and the defendant sued the plaintiff in the French courts.
The plaintiff claimed that the French courts had no jurisdiction. It relied on the following jurisdiction clause: the Court of Brescia shall have jurisdiction over any dispute arising from, or relating to, the present contract. Societa Italiana Lastre may sue the buyer in another competent court, in Italia or in a foreign country.
The Court of Appeal noted that this clause gave to the plaintiff a right to seise a greater number of courts and did not precise the objective factors on the basis of which the parties agreed to choose those courts. The Court of Appeal concluded that the clause gave the plaintiff the ability to choose a court at its discretion, even though jurisdiction clauses must be predictable.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court; it claimed that under Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), the jurisdiction clause should have been examined under Italian law because it designated an Italian court.
The Supreme Court recalled that the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the CJEU’) stated, in Case C-387/98 (2): ‘[Article 17(1) of the Brussels Convention (3)] does not require that a jurisdiction clause be formulated in such a way that the competent court can be determined on its wording alone. It is sufficient that the clause state the objective factors on the basis of which the parties have agreed to choose a court or the courts to which they wish to submit disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them. Those factors, which must be sufficiently precise to enable the court seised to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction, may, where appropriate, be determined by the particular circumstances of the case.’
However, the Court of Appeal noted that Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) introduced the following rule: regarding its validity, a jurisdiction clause is examined on its merits, under the law of the designated Member State.
The Supreme Court expressed doubts on the scope of this article in the case of the contentious clause. It decided to stay its proceedings and ask the CJEU – among other questions – if such a clause, challenged for its alleged imprecision or/and imbalance, must be examined under the law of the designated Member State or under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and in the latter case, if it is compliant to this regulation.
(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).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 November 2000, Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and Others, C-387/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:606.
(3) 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.