2025/06/29

French Court Upholds Irish Jurisdiction Clause, Reinforcing EU Law Supremacy

 



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.

SOURCE

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).