Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-09-07; 1re Civ., 7 septembre 2022, pourvoi n° 21-12.263
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100612
Date: 2022-09-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0907(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Croatian judgment ordered Mr [N] (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to pay a certain sum to the European Commission (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
The tribunal de grande instance (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared the Croatian judgment enforceable in France on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The defendant appealed against this decision to the Cour d’appel de Colmar (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which overturned it, ruling that the Regulation did not apply to the facts of the case.
The plaintiff then brought an exequatur action based on ordinary law, while the defendant appealed to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), against the appellate judgement.
In the plea examined by the Supreme Court, the defendant complained that the Court of Appeal had allowed the plaintiff to bring successive claims involving the same parties and identical in subject matter, whereas it was incumbent on the plaintiff to present all the grounds for its claim in the first instance. The plaintiff thus has allegedly violated Article 1355 of the Code civil (2) and Article 480 of the Code de procédure civile (3).
Similarly, the defendant argues that the plaintiff should have invoked the exequatur of ordinary law as a subsidiary to the appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability provided for in Article 43 of the Brussels I Regulation, in violation of the abovementioned rules and Articles 43 and 45 of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court maintains that the Court of Appeal analysed the application of the formalities provided for in Article 41 of the Brussels I Regulation in order to determine the enforceability of the Croatian decision. Hence, the Court of Appeal ruled out any other means derived from the Brussels I Regulation as a basis for declaring the decision enforceable.
Nevertheless, having ruled out the application of the Brussels I Regulation to the dispute, the Court of Appeal deduced, correctly in the Supreme Court's view, that the plaintiff's introduction of a new exequatur action based on ordinary law did not run up against the authority of res judicata insofar as the legal basis was distinct.
Therefore, 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.
(2) Code civil (French Civil Code).
(3) Code de procédure civile (French Code of civil procedure).