France: A Game of Asymmetries, Optional and Asymmetrical Choice of Court Agreements Under French Case Law

Locré (1805), p. 321.

Cass. civ. 19 feb. 1930 and 27 jan. 1931, Rev. crit. DIP 1931, p. 514; S. 1933, 1, 41, comm. by Niboyet. If those decisions were mainly addressing the validity of arbitration clauses, the Cour de cassation also annulled the court of appeal decision for overlooking choice of court clauses.

See recently, a semi-public authority report on the development of International business chambers in the Paris Tribunal de commerce (“Préconisations sur la mise en place à Paris de chambres spécialisées pour le traitement du contentieux international des affaires”, available at http://​hcjp.​fr), and the creation of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal in March 2018.

Cass. civ. 1ere 22 oct. 2008, Monster Cable, n° 07-15823, JCP G 2008, 10187, note L. d’Avout; D. 2009, p. 200, note F. Jault-Seseke; D. 2009, p. 684, chron. A. Huet; D. 2009, p. 2384, obs. L. d’Avout et S. Bollée; Gaz. Pal. 21 févr. 2009, n° 52, p. 27 note P. Guez; JDI 2009, p. 599, note M.-N. Jobard-Bachellier et F.-X. Train; Rev. crit. DIP 2009, p. 1, chron. D. Bureau et H. Muir Watt; RDC 2009, p. 691, obs. E. Treppoz; Procédures 2008, comm. 311, obs. C. Nourissat; Procédures 2009, étude 2, M. Attal.

See especially the commentary by Bureau and Muir Watt (2009), referring to Wai (2002).

Cass. civ. 1ere, 24 nov. 2015, Lauterbach, n° 14-14924, JDI 2016, p. 939, note L. Usunier; D. 2015. 2509, et 2016. 1045, obs. F. Jault-Seseke; RTD civ. 2016. 98, obs. H. Barbier; JCP 2016. 241, obs. C. Nourrissat.

Research has been mainly conducted on the very rich, public and free access website Legifrance.​gouv.​fr. This website keeps record of every Cour de cassation decision (the higher court in the private law judiciary in France) since 1987, all published ones since 1960, and the most important older ones. Courts of appeal decisions are numerous but not exhaustive, and first instance tribunal ones quite scarce, so that research cannot be deemed complete on the lower levels of judicial practice (and few of them actually proved useful for the research).

Two cases could be found. The first one, Cass. civ. 1e, 23 jan. 2008, n° 06-21011, discussed the effect of such a clause on art. 14 and 15 code civil, see below at note 27. A more recent case, Com. 12 may 2015, n° 13-28504 and 14-11028, rejected the argument based on the interpretation of the clause on a procedural ground (the argument was targeting a contract which was not the object of the litigation).

Cass. civ. 1^e, 7 dec. 2011, West Caribbean Airways, JDI 2012, p. 1384, note S. Clavel; RCDIP 2012, p. 138, Rapp. A. Maitrepierre; D. 2012, p. 254, obs. X. Delpech et note P. Delebecque et p. 1237, obs. F. Jault-Seseke et 1439, note H. Kenfack; JCP G 2012, p. 414, note 264 L. d’Avout; RTD civ. 2012, p. 367, note P. Théry; RDC 2012, p. 957, note A. Lapart. Interestingly, this decision was part of a struggle with some US courts to convince them to consider that such a right could not be undermined by the use of forum non conveniens in In re West Caribbean Airways, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1299; Pierre-Louis v. Newvac Corp., 584 F.3d 1052, 2009, In vain.

See the absence of distinction in Barbet and Rosher (2010).

The oldest available cases are Trib. civ. Doullens, 5 nov. 1948, Gaz. Pal. 1948. 2. 272; Paris, 4 juil. 1963, D. 1964, p. 151; Gaz. Pal. 1964, I, 39.

See last Cass. com., 14 juin 2016, n° 15-11.338.

Cass. civ. 1^ère, 26 sept. 2012, Rothschild, n° 11-26.022, Keyes and Marshall (2015); Rev. crit. DIP 2013, p. 256, note D. Bureau; Banque et droit 2013, n°148, p. 3 note M.-E. Ancel, L. Marion et L. Wynaendts (available in English at SSRN: https://​ssrn.​com/​abstract=​2258419); D. 2012, p. 2876, note D. Martel et 2013, p. 2293, obs. L. d’Avout, p. 1503, obs. F. Jault-Seseke; Rev. dr. com. belge 2013, p. 443, note C. Verbruggen; Gaz. Pal. 12 avril 2013, p. 37, obs. J. Morel-Maroger and 7 déc. 2012, obs. M. Nioche; Cah. Arb. 2013, p. 443, note J. Barbet; RTD Com. 2013, p. 383, obs. Ph. Delebecque; RDC 2013, p. 661, note J.-B. Racine; RDC 2013, p. 265, note J. Klein; Décid. jurid. et fi. 2013, n°147, p. 24, note D. Mondoloni; JCP E 2013, 1134, obs. C. Nourissat et 1003, note Ph. Grignon; JCP G 2013, 105, note L. Degos and D. Akchoti; RGDA 2013, p. 220, note R. Schulz; Option finance 2012, n° 1198, p. 31 obs. G. Benteux and A. Chazot; LPA 14 nov. 2012, p. 7, note J.-G. Mahinga; RJC 2012, n° 6 p. 21 note P. Berlioz; JCP G 2012, 1065, obs. E. Cornut. See also Ancel (2015).

See for example Cass. civ. 2^e, 1 june 2017, 16-18739; Cass. com. 23 sept. 2014, n° 13-19.108 and 13-21.934.

Nuyts (2007).

As to the divergence between the two terms “jurisdiction” and “competence”, see already Smit (1961). The role and nature of “competence” of courts was the topic of my PhD research: Mailhé (2016). Some of its findings were discussed in Mailhé (2015).

Cass. civ. 1e, 17 dec. 1985, n° 84-16.338, Rev. crit. DIP 1986, p. 537 comm. By H. Gaudemet-Tallon; D. 1986, IR, p. 265, obs. By B. Audit; B. Ancel et Y. Lequette, Grands Arrêts de droit international privé, Dalloz 2006, 5e ed., n° 72.

Such a situation is rare. If courts refuse to protect their competence when a loi de police is at stake, it is not to take it back on the basis of any random factor connecting the case to France. In practice, such exclusivity has seldom been observed, and it is usually considered that exclusivity is limited to issues on rights in rem in immovable property (art. 44 code of civil procedure), on the validity of registrations on public registries (including those of industrial property rights), on recourse to force such as for the enforcement of judgment and other usual exclusive competence situations. A specific difficulty stems from employment and consumer contracts. Where it now seems ascertained that clauses in employment contracts need to be limited to additional options offered to employees, consumer contracts have quite recently been protected by the Paris court of appeal through consumer law and unfair terms regulation (Paris 12 feb. 2016, n° 15/08624, D. 2016. 422, 1045, obs. F. Jault-Seseke, 2141, obs. J. Larrieu, and 2017. 539, obs. N. Sauphanor-Brouillaud; Dalloz IP/IT 2016. 214, obs. S. André et C. Lallemand; RTD civ. 2016. 310, obs. L. Usunier; CCE 2016 comm. 33, obs. G. Loiseau, and étude 12, note F. Mailhé). Both are now governed by Brussels I Recast anyway, at least as long as the consumer is domiciled in the EU and the employee working in the same area (art. 18 and 21).

See, as examples, Cass. com. 23 sept. 2014, n° 13-19.108 13-21.934; Cass. com. 28 feb. 2012, n° 11-16.156.

One exception: Cass. civ. 1e, 19 nov. 2002, n° 00-22334; D. 2003, jurispr. p. 797, note G. Khairallah; JCP G 2002, II, 10 201, concl. J. Sainte-Rose, note S. Chaillé de Néré; JCP E 2003, p. 1675, note M. Menjucq; Gaz. Pal. 26 june 2003, p. 29 note M.-L. Niboyet; RTD com. 2003, p. 169, obs. J.-L. Vallens; JDI 2003, p. 132, note Ph. Roussel-Galle; Rev. crit. DIP 2003, 631, note H. Muir Watt.

Cass. civ. 1^e, 14 oct. 2009, D. 2010, p. 177, note S. Bollée, RCDIP 2010, p. 158, note H. Muir Watt, Gaz. Pal. 2009, p. 332 note M.-L. Niboyet.

Cass. civ. 1e, 15 may 2018, n° 17-17546, JCP G 2018, 919, note F. Mailhé, JCP E 2018, 196, obs. C. Nourrissat. See also Lyon, 3 july 1912, Gaz. Pal. 1912, 2, p. 655; CA Paris, 20 june 1961, JDI 1962, p. 718 and Rev. crit. DIP 1962, p. 63, note Y. Loussouarn; TGI Seine, 10 jan. 1962, Rev. crit. DIP 1963, p. 607, note J. Déprez.

Cass. civ. 1e, 3 may 1977: Rev. crit. DIP 1978, p. 367, note D. A. The case is older than the Simitch decision which set the standard for refusal of enforcement on the ground of a problem of competence of the foreign court (Cass. civ. 1e, 18 feb. 1985). This case sets forth a double condition: there should be no violation of an exclusive competence of French courts (which is the reason for the May 15, 2018 case), and there should be a “characterized connection” between the case and the State of the foreign court. This double standard does not seem to allow to take into consideration the exclusive competence of a third State, but it has been argued that a choice of court agreement designating courts in such a State would prevent any “characterized connection” with another State.

See for a detailed discussion and a comparison with English law, Keyes and Marshall (2015).

This statement only considers the option as concerning the use of the clause itself, and not the various courts designated. If the choice offered by the clause is construed as exclusive of other options, the effect of the clause should be identical to the ones previously considered for exclusive agreements. Additionally, This rather simple presentation derives from the understanding of the clause as having a purely procedural effect, securing a forum while rejecting others. In the absence of additional contractual obligations (of damages in case of breach, for example), French law does not need to detail other consequences which derive from the law of competence itself. Comp., under English law, Merrett (2018), p. 40ff.

Now abandonned by both Cass civ. 1^e, 23 may 2006, Prieur, D. 2006, p. 1846, chr. B. Audit and pan. 1751, obs. P. Courbe; JCP 2006, 10134, note Callé; RCDIP 2006, p. 870, note H. Gaudemet-Tallon; JDI 2006, p. 1377, note C. Chalas; PA 22 sept. 2006, p. 10, obs. P. Courbe; Grands Arrêts n^o 87 and Cass. civ. 1^e, 22 may 2007, Fercométal, D. 2007, AJ p. 1586 and chron. B. Audit, p. 2548; JCP 2007, actu. 258 obs. C. Chabert; RCDIP 2007, p. 610, note H. Gaudemet-Tallon; JDI 2007, p. 956, note B. Ancel and H. Muir Watt; Gaz. Pal. 21–22 march 2008, p. 28, obs. M.-L. Niboyet.

In a case decided after the change of interpretation of the article 14 and 15 code civil as privileges (the Cour de cassation decided to uphold a decision where the court of appeal had enforced a choice of court clause against article 14 code civil, even though the clause was construed as non-exclusive, see Cass. civ. 1^e, 23 jan. 2008, n° 06-21011, JDI 2009, comm. 14 note A. Sinay-Cytermann.

Cass. civ. 2e, 15 june 1966, D. 1967, p. 84; Gaz. Pal. 1966, 2, p. 184. Some cases before the Paris tribunal and some courts of appeal had already dealt with such clauses in the same way even prior to that.

As examples reaching the higher court: Cass. com., 14 feb.1989, n° 86-17.140; Cass. Civ. 1ere, 29 june 2011, n° 10-22.933; Cass. com., 14 june 2016, n° 15-11.338.

Versailles, 16 feb. 2006, n° ct0141; Versailles 30 nov. 2000, RG n° 1997-5188.

See e.g., Civ. 2e, 13 july 1999, n° 97-22489.

See e.g. Cass. soc. 29 may 2013, n° 12-15966.

See e.g. CA Paris, 12 feb. 2016, n° 15/08624, already quoted footnote 19.

Articles 15 and 19 Brussels I Recast.

CA Paris, 30 nov. 1988 and 14 dec. 1988, JDI 1990, p. 153; CA Rouen, 8 dec. 1994, DMF 1995, p. 554. See also cases cited in DMF 1993, p. 525, obs. P. Bonassies. Others were favourable: CA Rouen, 21 oct. 1992, DMF 1993, p. 529, obs. Y. Tassel; CA Aix, 17 july 2014, DMF 2014, p. 764, note Ph. Delebecque.

“Potestativité” is, under French law, a reason for setting aside the obligation that it impairs. A contractual obligation is “potestative” when its very existence depends upon the discretionary will of one of the parties only, in contradiction with its contractual character.

Cass. civ. 1^ère, 25 march 2015, Danne Holding, n° 13-27.264, Marshall (2016); L. d’Avout, JCP G 2015, 600; S. Bollée, D. 2015, p. 2031; L. Usunier, RTD Civ. 2015, p. 844; M.-E. Ancel, Banque et droit 2015, n° 163, p. 4; J. Morel-Maroger, Gaz. Pal. 31 july 2015, p. 29; J.-P. Mattout et A. Prüm, Dr. et pat. 2015, n°250, p. 90; J. Mestre et A.-S. Mestre-Chami, RLDA 2016, n° 115, p. 43.

Cass. civ. 1^ère, 7 oct. 2015, eBizcuss, n° 14-16.898, RDC 2016, p. 282 note E. Treppoz; D. 2015, p. 2620, obs F. Jault-Seseke; Dr. et pat. 2016, n° 256, p. 102, obs. J.-P. Mattout et A. Prüm; Gaz. Pal. 11 nov. 2015, p. 19, C. Dupoirier et V. Bouvard; Procédures 2015, n° 12, p. 80, obs. C. Nourissat; Rev. dr. banc. et fi. 2016, n° 1, p. 25, note A. Vrignaud; JCP E 2016, 1087, note M.-E. Ancel and L. Marion; RCA 2016, Etud. 5, note N. Ciron; Banque et droit 2016, n° 166, p. 68, note G. Affaki; JCP G 2015, 1123, obs. F. Mailhé.

Cass. civ. 1^ère, 11 mai 2017, n° 15-18758, D. 2017, p. 2054, obs. L. d’Avout; JDI 2017, p. 1338, note M.-E. Ancel et L. Marion; Rev. crit. DIP 2017, p. 483, note D. Bureau.

See Mailhé (2017).

Cass. civ. 1e., 7 feb. 2018, n° 16-24.497, D. 2018, p. 1934, S. Bollée; JDI 2018, comm. 16, note M.-E. Ancel et L. Marion.

Cass. civ. 1e., 3 oct. 2018, n° 17-21.309, JDI 2018, comm. 16, note M.-E. Ancel et L. Marion, JCP G 2018, note F. Mailhé, to be published.

CJCE, 9 nov. 2000, case C-387/98, JDI 2001, p. 701, note J.-M. Bischoff; Rev. crit. DIP 2001, p. 359, note F. Bernard-Fertier.

That was the interpretation followed once by a court of appeal: Versailles, 21 oct. 2014, RG n° 14/03184.

Cass. com. 14 june 2016, 15-11338.

Mailhé (2018), published in the new Assas International Law Review. We take the liberty to signal this journal to the reader: launched this year, the RDIA/AILR contains articles both in French and English with an annual chronicle of French decisions on international law in English.

« Qu, en se déterminant ainsi, sans rechercher si le déséquilibre dénoncé, en ce que la clause litigieuse réservait à la banque le droit d’agir contre l’emprunteur devant « tout autre tribunal compétent » et ne précisait pas sur quels éléments objectifs cette compétence alternative était fondée,n, était pas contraire à l, objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridiquepoursuivi par le texte susvisé ». The underlined part translates as: “in so deciding, without any verification that this unbalance […] wasn’t contrary to the objective of predictability and legal certainty…”.

New article 1171 civil code: “Any term of a standard form contract which creates a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract is deemed not written”, translated by Cartwright et al. (2016).

Civ. 1^e, 29 june 2011, n° 10-22933.

Cass. com. 14 june 2016, n° 15-11338.

See e.g. Deumier (2013).

Civ. 2^e, 1 june 2017, n° 16-18739.

ECJ, 4 Oct. 2018, case C-416/97.

CJCE, 9 nov. 2000, quoted above at note 43.

It may have been an additional reason for the temptation of some courts to limit them to “predictable” ones.

On this issue of rules of applicability, see Audit and Berman (2005).

Ordonnance n° 2016-131 du 10 février 2016 portant réforme du droit des contrats, du régime général et de la preuve des obligations. For a translation, see Cartwright et al. (2016).