Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-05-17; 1re Civ., 17 mai 2023, pourvoi n° 22-16.489
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100338
Date: 2023-05-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0517(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Court de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned an action brought in France against the former manager of a German company.
The company Finamur (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) was the lessor of an industrial property complex rented by the German company Mh International, which stopped paying rent and utility costs and was eventually dissolved. The defendant sued the former manager of Mh International (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’): it claimed that he had fraudulently dissolved the company.
The case was brought before the cour d’appel de Rennes (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which held that the French courts had no jurisdiction, on the grounds that the case had no foreign elements.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. He claimed that the German courts had jurisdiction because the head office of Mh International was in Germany. He relied on Article 24(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which provides as follows: ‘The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties […] in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law’.
However, the Supreme Court deduced from this article that the French courts had jurisdiction, because the defendant’s action was not brought against Mh International, but against the plaintiff, who, according to the defendant, was personally responsible for the dissolution of the company.
The appeal was dismissed.
(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).