Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-06-07; 1re Civ., 7 juin 2023, pourvoi n° 22-16.758
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100403
Date: 2023-06-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0607(53)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned the scope of Article 17(1), point (c), of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
A natural person domiciled in France (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) had bank accounts at a Lebanese bank (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). When the defendant refused to transfer the assets in those accounts into a French bank account, the plaintiff seised the French courts.
The case was brought before the cour d’appel de Versailles (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). The plaintiff cited Article 17(1), point (c), of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), which provides that ‘[in] matters relating to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 6 and point 5 of Article 7, if […] the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities’.
However, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not rely on that article, on the grounds that ‘the question is not so much whether [the defendant], “which pursues commercial or professional activities”, “directed these activities” towards France, but whether these activities directed towards France permitted the signature of the contract’. The Court of Appeal ruled that it was not the case and held that the French courts had no jurisdiction.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued that the above-quoted article ‘only requires to examine whether the bank considered trading with French customers before the conclusion of the contract’.
The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff. It referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which held, in Case C-218/12 (2), that Article 15(1), point (c), of the Brussels I Regulation (3) – which became Article 17(1), point (c), of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) – ‘must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the existence of a causal link between the means employed to direct the commercial or professional activity to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile […] and the conclusion of the contract with that consumer’.
For this reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside.
(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 17 October 2013, Lokman Emrek v Vlado Sabranovic, C‑218/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:666, paragraph 32.
(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.