A French national who had opened a social media account for professional
use, agreeing to the platform's terms and conditions.
These terms stipulated that any disputes arising from the account would be
exclusively handled by the Irish courts. When the user alleged her account was
hacked and sought damages from the social media company, she initiated
proceedings in France.
The social media company, however, challenged the French court's
jurisdiction, citing the exclusive jurisdiction clause in their agreement.
The plaintiff referred to French law,
believing that a rule leading to the invalidity of an imbalance in the adhesion
contract could be applied.
The defendant referred to European
Union law, believing that the jurisdiction clause should be considered based on
the law of the court specified in the jurisdiction clause.
The Court of France ruled in favor of
the defendant.
French Court
Upholds Irish Jurisdiction Clause, Reinforcing EU Law Supremacy
Paris, France – April 2, 2025 – In a significant ruling that clarifies the
application of EU jurisdiction rules, the French Cour de Cassation has affirmed
the validity of an Irish jurisdiction clause, rebuffing an attempt to apply Article
1171 of the French Civil Code[1]. The decision, issued
today, reinforces the principle that when parties agree to a specific Member
State's courts for dispute resolution, the substantive validity of that
agreement is to be assessed under the law of the designated Member State, not
the law of the forum court trying to assert its jurisdiction.
The case involved a French national who had opened a
social media account for professional use, agreeing to the platform's terms and
conditions. These terms stipulated that any disputes arising from the account
would be exclusively handled by the Irish courts. When the user alleged her
account was hacked and sought damages from the social media company, she
initiated proceedings in France. The social media company, however, challenged
the French court's jurisdiction, citing the exclusive jurisdiction clause in
their agreement.
The claimant contended that the Irish jurisdiction
clause was invalid under French law, specifically Article 1171 of the French
Civil Code. This article invalidates clauses in standard-form contracts that
create a significant imbalance between the parties' rights and obligations. The
claimant argued that litigating in Ireland would be unduly burdensome for a
French individual, thus creating such an imbalance. Furthermore, she attempted
to frame Article 1171 as an "overriding mandatory provision" under The
Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual
obligations), arguing that French law should therefore govern the validity of
the jurisdiction clause, overriding the contractual choice of Irish courts.
However, the Cour de Cassation squarely rejected these
arguments. Crucially, the court highlighted that the Rome I Regulation, which
determines applicable law in contractual matters, expressly excludes
jurisdiction agreements from its scope. Consequently, French national
provisions, even if considered "overriding mandatory provisions"
under Rome I for other contractual matters, could not be invoked to invalidate
a jurisdiction clause.
The court then turned to Article 25(1) of the Brussels
Recast Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012), the cornerstone of EU rules on
jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Article 25(1) states that a
jurisdiction clause is valid unless it is "null and void as to its
substantive validity under the law of that Member State" – referring to
the Member State whose courts have been designated.
In line with this provision, the Cour de Cassation
held that since the parties had chosen the Irish courts, the substantive
validity of the jurisdiction clause could only be assessed by reference to
Irish law. As there was no basis for applying French law, the claimant's
reliance on Article 1171 of the French Civil Code was deemed
"ineffective." Accordingly, the French court declined jurisdiction.
This decision aligns with the broader principles
articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Società
Italiana Lastre SpA and Agora SARL ("Lastre") judgment.
While the Lastre case specifically addressed asymmetric
jurisdiction clauses, the CJEU's reasoning underscored that the validity of a
jurisdiction clause under Article 25(1) is primarily to be assessed under the
law of the designated Member State, potentially alongside autonomous EU law
principles.
The French ruling serves as a valuable reminder that
national courts, when faced with a jurisdiction clause designating courts in
another Member State, must look to the law of that designated Member State for
assessing the clause's substantive validity, rather than substituting their own
national mandatory provisions. The decision, while not directly addressing an
asymmetric clause, solidifies the approach that the agreed-upon jurisdiction,
and the law of that jurisdiction, are paramount in such matters under the
Brussels Recast framework. It reiterates the importance of party autonomy in
choosing dispute resolution forums within the EU, provided the chosen forum's
law does not render the agreement invalid.
[1] Article 1171 of the French
Civil Code. In
a contract of adhesion, any non-negotiable clause, determined in advance by one
of the parties, that creates a significant imbalance between the rights and
obligations of the parties to the contract is deemed unwritten. The assessment
of significant imbalance shall not relate to either the main subject matter of
the contract or the adequacy of the price in relation to the service (Dans un
contrat d'adhésion, toute clause non négociable, déterminée à l'avance par
l'une des parties, qui crée un déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et
obligations des parties au contrat est réputée non écrite. L'appréciation du
déséquilibre significatif ne porte ni sur l'objet principal du contrat ni sur
l'adéquation du prix à la prestation).