Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2023-02-01; 1re Civ., 1 février 2023, pourvoi n° 20-15.703
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2023:C100072
Date: 2023-02-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82023FR0201(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned jurisdictional competence in the context of an allegation of electronic disparagement.
The American corporation Enigma Software Group USA LLC and its Irish subsidiary Enigmasoft Limited (hereinafter ‘the defendants’) initiated legal proceedings against the American corporation Malwarebytes Inc and its Irish subsidiary Malwarebytes Limited (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) before the tribunal de commerce de Paris (‘the Court of First Instance’). The defendants accused the plaintiffs of online marketing of software that disparaged their products, thereby adversely affecting their sales in France.
The defendants invoked the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) to establish the competence of the French courts, relying on Article 7(2), which provides for jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict, or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’.
The plaintiffs challenged the asserted jurisdiction, contending that the alleged acts occurred in the United States, where the software in question was modified, and consequently, the French courts lacked the competence to adjudicate the case. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that another legal proceeding concerning the same facts had been initiated outside of France. They maintained that this proceeding it was likely that a US court was more appropriately positioned to address the case, given that key decisions regarding the software were made in the United States. This line of argument sought to fortify the principle that jurisdiction should reside with the territory where the key decisions and disputed actions occurred, rather than the location where the harm was experienced.
The cour d’appel de Paris (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments, ruling that the defendants’ claims were limited to the harm suffered in France and that evidence established that the plaintiffs specifically targeted the French market.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Upon reviewing the arguments presented and analysing the legal framework of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeal had appropriately retained jurisdiction. The Supreme Court opined that the harm suffered by the defendants in France was sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of French courts, irrespective of where the incriminated acts (modification of the software) occurred. The Supreme Court further concluded that although the dispute was international in nature and involved software distributed over the Internet, the specific claim of the defendants was focused on the French market. The Court deemed this claim to be geographically divisible, meaning it was confined to the damage incurred in France, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the French courts. The Court asserted that the location of the software modification decisions was less pertinent than the location where the damage was suffered, in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs, affirming that the French courts were competent to rule on the alleged disparagement facts by the defendants that impacted French territory.
(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).