Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-09-28; 1re Civ., 28 septembre 2022, pourvoi n° 21-13.686
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100684
Date: 2022-09-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: France

82022FR0928(53)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned a choice of forum clause in a credit agreement.
The plaintiffs entered a credit agreement with a Swiss bank (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). This agreement included the following clause: ‘any dispute between the parties and pertaining to the performance, the interpretation or the validity of the loan agreement falls within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, as opposed to the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court. However, at its sole discretion, [the defendant] keeps a right to bring an action before whatever competent authority it may choose; in any case, Swiss law is applicable’.
Claiming that the clause was unfair, the plaintiffs seised the French courts. The case was brought before the cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), then before the Supreme Court.
Before both courts, the plaintiffs argued that:
- the clause did not refer to a rule of domestic or international law, as a result of which it was at odds with the objective of predictability of Article 23 of the new Lugano Convention (1);
- the clause did not designate with enough precision the courts that the defendant was entitled to seise in the event of a dispute.
Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court held that:
- the clause was not at odds with the objective of predictability because the freedom given to the defendant to ‘bring an action before whatever competent authority it may chose’ was grounded on the applicable law, that is, in this case, Swiss law;
- as the French courts were seised by the plaintiffs, it was of no importance that the clause did not designate with enough precision the courts that the defendant was entitled to seise in the event of a dispute.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.