Cour de cassation; 2018-02-07; 16-24497
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:C100165
Date: 2018-02-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: France

82018FR0207(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ICH is the successor to Danne Holding Patrimoniale (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
The plaintiff signed two credit agreements with the bank Crédit Suisse, domiciled in Switzerland. These agreements contained a jurisdiction clause which read as follows: "the debtor acknowledges that the exclusive place of jurisdiction for all proceedings is Zurich or the place of the bank's branch where the relationship is established" and "the bank is, however, entitled to bring an action against the debtor before any other competent court".
A British resident, who is a representative of the company NJRH of the same nationality, acted as an intermediary in the financial arrangement of the loan transaction. The French bank Société Générale also participated in the transaction. These three operators and the Swiss bank are the defendants.
The plaintiff sued the defendants before the French courts for alleged damages. In a decision rendered on remand after cassation, the Cour d'appel de Rennes (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) referred the parties to a more appropriate court, designating the tribunal de grande instance de Paris (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Paris’) to hear the claims brought against all defendants.
Crédit Suisse appealed to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), invoking the jurisdiction clause, to assert that the plaintiff's action should be brought before the court in Zurich, pursuant to Article 23 of the new Lugano Convention (1) and Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (2).
The Supreme Court held that although Article 23 of the new Lugano Convention applies in this case, it is necessary to examine the validity of the disputed contract provision. The Court stated that a jurisdiction clause must be precise in order to satisfy the objective of predictability and legal certainty pursued by the Convention.
Following the disputed jurisdiction clause, Crédit Suisse imposed the recourse to Zurich courts in the event of an action brought against it but reserves the right to bring an action against the plaintiff "in any court having jurisdiction", without listing these courts or referring to objective elements of domestic or international law as a basis for this alternative jurisdiction.
Crédit Suisse argued that this jurisdiction is to be deduced from the applicable laws, specifically European ones.
The Supreme Court refused this argument and held that the jurisdiction clause as stipulated in the contract is null and void since it is vague and imprecise so that it cannot be concluded that a careful agreement of the parties on the determination of the forum is validly formed. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the French courts was confirmed.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.