Cour de cassation; 2018-03-14; 17-10320
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2018:C100287
Date: 2018-03-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: France

82018FR0314(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A French national residing in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) describes his professional activity as the management of his assets through industrial operations involving companies in which he holds shares.
In 2005, he entered into a loan granted by the bank Natixis. The deed signed stipulates that in case of dispute, French law is applicable, and the courts of Paris have jurisdiction.
In 2006, the bank initiated an action to recover the debt, following an unsuccessful formal notice. The plaintiff invoked a plea of lack of jurisdiction.
In a decision rendered on remand after cassation, the cour d’appel de Rouen (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) held that the French courts are competent to hear the case. The plaintiff appealed to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The plaintiff claimed that the French courts should decline jurisdiction arguing that he should be considered a consumer in the contract at issue. Therefore, Articles 13 and 14 of the Lugano Convention (1) should apply. Under those provisions, in the event of a dispute arising in his relationship with a trader, a consumer must be sued before the courts of the place where he is domiciled.
In order to exclude his characterisation as a consumer, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff owned 99% of the capital of the company that pledged its shares to the bank, as collateral for a loan granted by the latter to third parties. Following the sale of his shares, the plaintiff attempted to buy back from the bank the debt guaranteed by the collateral.
Although these are two different actions, the plaintiff cannot validly maintain that this last disputed transaction is foreign to his professional activity as he presents it. He cannot, therefore, enjoy the protection afforded to consumers. The Supreme Court refused to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling and confirmed the jurisdiction of the French courts based on the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the contract.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Done at Lugano on 16 September 1988.