Cour de cassation; 2018-03-14; 16-27913
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:C100147
Date: 2018-03-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: France

82018FR0314(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
During an equestrian competition in Switzerland, the mare of a French company Haras des Coudrettes (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) was injured by a stallion belonging to Mrs X and the Swiss company Ecuries X and ridden by Mr X (hereinafter ‘the defendants’).
The plaintiff sued the defendants in summary proceedings to obtain the appointment of an expert. An appeal was lodged before the cour d'appel de Caen (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) which dismissed the jurisdiction of the French courts. The plaintiff appealed to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The plaintiff requested the application of Article 5 of the new Lugano Convention (1), arguing that France is the place where the damage was both characterized with certainty and actually suffered. As a result of the mare's irreparable injuries, it was in France that the plaintiff incurred expenses and suffered financial losses.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that in this case, the action that could be brought was of a quasi-tort nature and did not arise from a complex event. The Court of Appeal correctly deduced that Switzerland was the only place where the damage occurred, where the mare was injured. Therefore, French courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court confirmed the application of Article 31 of the new Lugano Convention, which authorises the courts of a bound State, lacking jurisdiction on the merits of a case, to order any provisional or protective measures provided for by law. In the present case, the purpose of the summary proceedings was to order an expert opinion intended to preserve or establish evidence on which the solution of the dispute may depend, which constitutes protective measures within the meaning of the article. Thus, the court of the place where the expert opinion is to be carried out, even partially, is competent to order it.
The Court of Appeal, which found that the requested measure was intended to examine the mare in France, did not draw the legal consequences of its finding and violated Article 31 of the new Lugano Convention. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed and annulled its judgment and referred the parties back to the Court of Appeal in Rouen for further proceedings.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.