Cour de cassation; 2023-01-18; Com., 18 janvier 2023, pourvoi n° 21-18.501
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:CO00044
Date: 2023-01-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0118(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 French Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it held that a carrier was not responsible for the deterioration of a machine tool.
The French company Knappe Composite (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entrusted the transport of an electronically controlled milling machine to the German company Detraco (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’), which subcontracted the maritime part of the transport to the company Compagnie internationale de transport transit (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’), which substituted itself with the company Mediterranean Shipping Company (hereinafter ‘defendant 3’). Damage was recorded when the machine was delivered; it would later prove to have been caused by humidity during the sea transport, as the machine had been put on the ship deck, in unfit packaging.
The plaintiff sued defendant 1 before the German courts, and all the defendants before the French courts. The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the German Court of Appeal’) ordered defendant 1 to pay the plaintiff a capped indemnity, after which the French proceedings resumed. In these proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew its claims against defendant 1 and demanded an indemnity from defendant 3.
The French Court of Appeal refused to hold defendant 3 responsible on the grounds that the damage was caused by unsuitable packaging, and would not doubtlessly have been avoided if the machine had been put under the deck.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued that putting the machine under the deck would have greatly reduced the risks of damage; as a result, the cause of the damage was, at least in part, the fact that the machine had been carried on the deck. The plaintiff also claimed that the French Court of Appeal was bound by the grounds of the judgment of the German Court of Appeal, which held that the damage could only have happened because, contrary to the contract, the machine was carried on deck. The plaintiff concluded that the French Court of Appeal infringed Article 65(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), which provides as follows: ‘Judgments given in other Member States by virtue of Article 6(2), or Article 11 shall be recognised and enforced in Germany and Austria in accordance with Chapter III. Any effects which judgments given in these States may have on third parties by application of the provisions in paragraph 1 shall also be recognised in the other Member States.’
The plaintiff also argued that the French Court of Appeal exempted defendant 3 from its liability, although ‘the carrier may not be exempted from its liability if the damage is the result of his inexcusable, intentional or deceitful misconduct’.
The Supreme Court held that the French Court of Appeal exercised its discretion in assessing the evidence before it, and Article 65(2) of the Brussels I Regulation was not infringed because the judgment of the French Court of Appeal and that of the German Court of Appeal were not given between the same parties.
As for the exemption of responsibility, the Supreme Court ruled that the plea of the plaintiff was inoperative because the French Court of Appeal did not recognise a causal link between the misconduct of defendant 3 and the damage incurred to the machine.
For those reasons, the appeal was dismissed.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.