Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-06-28; 1re Civ., 28 juin 2023, pourvoi n° 22-12.738
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100449
Date: 2023-06-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0628(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private individual (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) purchased a vehicle from the company Automeetic, which the company Pharmavox had entrusted to it as a sales consignment. Both companies are Belgian (hereinafter ‘the defendants’).
Following malfunctions, the plaintiff sued the defendants for the annulment of the sale and the payment of various sums before the tribunal judiciaire de Bobigny (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The defendants argued that the French courts lacked jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance granted the plaintiff's requests. The defendants appealed to the Cour d'Appel de Paris (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which declared that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to hear the case and referred the parties back for further proceedings.
The plaintiff is now appealing to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) against the appellate ruling.
The plaintiff argues that, in the context of the vehicle purchase transaction, he must be considered as a consumer so that the court of his place of residence has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. In contrast, the Court of Appeal considered him a professional because of his business activity of leasing the purchased car. The Court of Appeal allegedly failed to justify its decision in the light of Articles 15 and 16 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). Hence, by ruling that the claimant was a professional, even though his professional activity was incidental and marginal in these circumstances, the Court of Appeal infringed the abovementioned articles.
The Supreme Court recalls that only those who have acted outside and independently of any business activity or purpose, with the sole aim of satisfying their own private consumption needs, fall under the special regime provided by the Regulation for consumer protection as a party deemed to be weaker. This principle derives from Article 17 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), which replaces Article 15 of the Brussels I Regulation. In such cases, the courts of the consumer's domicile are competent to hear disputes arising from consumer contracts.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal had established the facts in a sovereign manner, in that the plaintiff had purchased the vehicle as part of a commercial leasing project and could not, therefore, be considered a consumer within the meaning of the aforementioned Regulations.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
(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) 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).