Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-07-12; 1re Civ., 12 juillet 2023, pourvoi n° 21-22.843
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100546
Date: 2023-07-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0712(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned the determination of the competent jurisdiction in an international dispute.
In this case, the company Ziemann France, later known as Ziemex (hereinafter ‘plaintiff 1’), along with the company CICR and its insurer, Allianz IARD (together hereinafter ‘plaintiff 2’), were opposed to the company Maschinen und Edelstahlhandel (MEH) and its insurers, Generali Deutschland Versicherung AG and R+V Versicherung (hereinafter ‘the defendants’).
Plaintiff 1 had been commissioned by the company Roquette Frères to construct a fermenter. As part of this project, it entrusted the making of the heat exchanger to plaintiff 2 and acquired steel tubes from the defendants. These tubes turned out to be defective, causing significant malfunctions in the fermenter. Following these issues, a settlement occurred between Roquette and the plaintiffs, including an assignment of claims. This allowed the plaintiffs to initiate legal action against the defendants.
The defendants contested the competence of the French jurisdiction. They argued that the conflict should be considered contractual rather than tortious. Therefore, the applicable law should be that of the place of the sale of the tubes, namely Germany, according to the Hague Convention of 15 June 1955 (1). The Court of Appeal accepted these arguments and declared the plaintiffs' direct action inadmissible, relying on German law which only recognises direct action in specific cases, not present in this matter.
The plaintiffs contested this analysis and filed an appeal in cassation against the decision of the Court of Appeal. They maintained that French law should apply, particularly Article L. 124-3 of the code des assurances (2). This article explicitly provides for the possibility of direct action in such situations. The plaintiffs argued that the Court of Appeal should have applied the law of the place where the damage occurred, in this case, France, according to Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (3).
The Supreme Court held that Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation allowed for action before the French courts, as the damage had occurred in France. It noted that the Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the law by not considering French law which authorises direct action according to Article L. 124-3 of the code des assurances. The Supreme Court also referred to the principle of the autonomy of the will, stipulated in Article 1134 of the code civil (4), which emphasises that agreements concluded between parties have the force of law.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the competence of the French jurisdiction and the validity of the direct action according to French law. It remanded the case for a new judgment and ordered the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(1) Convention of 15 June 1955 on the law applicable to international sales of goods.
(2) Code des assurances (Insurance Code).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(4) Code civil (Civil code).