Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-06-29; 1re Civ., 29 juin 2022, pourvoi n° 21-10.106
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100536
Date: 2022-06-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0629(53)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case, the Court de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) examined if the cour d’appel de Paris (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it held that a Congolese refugee domiciled in France was not entitled to sue foreign companies before the French courts.
A Congolese national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) fled the Democratic Republic of the Congo; claiming that he had been a victim of violence and death threats by a hierarchical superior, was recognised as a refugee. Afterwards, he sued in France his former employer, the Congolese company BGFI Bank RDC, as well as its parent company, the Gabonese company BGFI Holding Corporation (hereinafter ‘the defendants’).
The case was brought before the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff relied on Article 14 of the code civil (1), which provides that ‘whether or not they reside in France, foreign persons may be sued before the French courts for performance of the obligations under which they put themselves in France towards French persons; they may be sued before the French courts, for the obligations under which they put themselves in a foreign country towards French persons’. He argued that he could rely on this article pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Geneva Convention (2), which provides that ‘[a] refugee shall enjoy in the Contracting State in which he has his habitual residence the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the courts’.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not rely on Article 14 of the code civil because Article 16 of the Geneva Convention pertains to rules on the enjoyment of rights and not rules on jurisdiction.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
He once again cited Article 16(2) of the Geneva Convention.
However, he also invoked Article 6(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3), which provides that ‘as against [a defendant who is not domiciled in a Member State], any person domiciled in a Member State may, whatever his nationality, avail himself in that Member State of the rules of jurisdiction there in force’.
The Supreme Court agreed that Article 6(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) allowed the plaintiff to rely on Article 14 of the code civil.
For this reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside.
(1) Code civil (Civil Code).
(2) Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees.
(3) 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).