The customer may bring proceedings before the court of the place where the service was physically performed, even where the provider performed some tasks at their headquarters. In contractual matters, Article 46 of the French Code of Civil Procedure opens an option as to jurisdiction: the court of the defendant's domicile, or the court of the place of actual delivery of the goods or of the place of performance of the service. The lower court judges assess that place of performance in their unfettered discretion.
Key points
- In contractual matters, the claimant chooses between the court of the place where the defendant resides, the court of the place of actual delivery of the goods and the court of the place of performance of the service.
- Where an installation contract includes obtaining a certificate of compliance, that inspection may be analysed as a component of the contractual whole, performed at the customer's site.
- Merely contacting an approved body may be characterised as a mere administrative step, and not as a service located at the provider's registered office.
- Determining the place of performance falls within the unfettered assessment of the lower court judges, on the basis of the documents produced.
- A clause of the special administrative conditions schedule (cahier des clauses administratives particulières) describing the obligations does not, on its own, determine which court has jurisdiction.
Which court should hear a dispute over an installation?
The court of the place where the installation was carried out and inspected has jurisdiction, provided that this place corresponds to the performance of the service. That is what the second civil chamber holds (Civ. 2e, 5 March 2026, No. 23-16.308), dismissing the appeal to the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) and approving the court of appeal for having held that the commercial court within whose area the service had been performed had jurisdiction.
A joint farming group (groupement agricole d'exploitation en commun) had entrusted a company with building a photovoltaic power plant. The special administrative conditions schedule provided for a technical inspection intended to certify the compliance of the installations. The installation entered into service on 21 July 2017, but the certificate of compliance was not issued until 20 December 2018. The group sought to establish the installer's liability before a commercial court, relying on the damage resulting from that delay.
The commercial court had initially upheld the plea of lack of jurisdiction (exception d'incompétence) raised by the installer. The decision under appeal (CA Agen, 29 March 2023, No. 22/00847) overturned that decision and held that the commercial court had jurisdiction. The Cour de cassation dismisses the appeal: the clause of the special administrative conditions schedule was not distorted, and the place of performance found by the lower court judges justifies their jurisdiction (free translation).
Under Article 46 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, in contractual matters the claimant may bring proceedings, at their choice, before the court of the place where the defendant resides, before the court of the place of actual delivery of the goods or before the court of the place of performance of the service.
What the option as to jurisdiction changes for the customer
The customer under an installation contract is not required to litigate at the provider's registered office. The option available in contractual matters allows the customer to bring the dispute before the court of the place where the service was actually performed. For a technical installation, that place is in practice the site: that is where the equipment is fitted, where the inspection takes place and where the certificate is handed over.
The reasoning followed deserves attention. The installer argued that its obligation consisted in entrusting the inspection to a body of its choice, an obligation that could be performed from its registered office. The lower court judges rejected that reading: contacting an approved body to ask it to carry out the inspection and issue the certificate is a mere administrative step. The actual service – travelling to the site, examining the installations, issuing the certificate – took place at the customer's site.
This approach neutralises a frequent argument: that of the intellectual or administrative nature of an obligation, relied on to attach it to the provider's registered office. The decision adopts a reading of the contract as a whole. Obtaining the certificate of compliance is one of the acts intended to carry out the installation; it is a component of the contractual whole binding the parties, not a separate, severable obligation.
The scope of the lower court judges' unfettered assessment
Locating the service falls within the unfettered assessment of the lower court judges, which greatly limits the review carried out on an appeal to the Cour de cassation. The second civil chamber says so expressly: findings as to the nature of the obligations and their place of performance fall within the unfettered assessment by the lower court judges of the value and scope of the evidence submitted.
The complaint of distortion was the second strand of the appeal to the Cour de cassation. The installer criticised the court of appeal for reading clause 1.5 as placing the technical inspection on it, whereas that clause, in its view, concerned the appointment of an inspector. The Cour de cassation rejects the complaint: the court of appeal ruled without distorting the clause. The characterisation adopted followed from a reading of the scheme of the contract, not from a rewriting of the stipulation.
What remains open is a matter of the facts of each case. The decision does not hold that every obligation to call on a third party is a mere administrative step. The solution rests on the precise configuration of the contract: an installation to be carried out on a specified site, the compliance inspection forming a component of it. As the case law stands at 5 March 2026, different contractual drafting could lead to a different location.
What to do when jurisdiction is challenged?
A challenge to jurisdiction is prepared from the drafting of the contract onwards, and is then decided on the factual demonstration of the place of performance. A provider wishing to avoid being sued far from its registered office cannot simply assert that its obligation is intellectual or administrative.
For the claimant customer, the issue is one of evidence. It is for the customer to establish, with supporting documents, where the services physically took place: site visits, formal records, delivery of documents. The description of the contractual whole counts as much as the isolated clause relied on by the opposing party.
For the provider, the lesson is the mirror image. A clause describing an obligation does not in itself determine which court has jurisdiction. Judges read the contract in its overall scheme and find the place where the service was actually provided to the customer.
Checks to carry out before raising a plea of lack of jurisdiction
- Identify the place where the services were physically provided: site of intervention, place of delivery, place where the contractual documents were handed over.
- Read the whole contract, and not only the clause relied on: the characterisation adopted by the judges follows from the general scheme of the agreement.
- Assess the scope of the statutory option: the claimant may bring proceedings before the court of the defendant's domicile, the court of the place of actual delivery of the goods or the court of the place of performance of the service.
- Anticipate the unfettered nature of the lower court judges' assessment of the place of performance: the argument is won before them, on the basis of the documents produced.
- Check whether the disputed obligation is a self-standing service or a mere administrative step integrated into a wider contractual whole.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue my service provider near my own premises rather than at its registered office?
Yes, where the dispute is contractual and the service was performed near you. Article 46 of the French Code of Civil Procedure opens an option: the claimant may bring proceedings before the court of the place where the defendant resides, the court of the place of actual delivery of the goods, or the court of the place of performance of the service. You still need to prove, with supporting documents, where the service was physically provided.
Does a technical inspection entrusted to an outside body count as a service performed on site?
It can be attached to the site where the inspection forms a component of the contractual whole. In the decision of 5 March 2026, the judges found that the installer only had to contact an approved body, which was a mere administrative step, whereas the inspection itself involved travelling to the site, examining the installations and handing the certificate to the customer. The place of the site was therefore retained.
Can the Cour de cassation review the place of performance found by the court of appeal?
Its review is very limited. The second civil chamber points out that findings as to the nature of the obligations and their place of performance fall within the unfettered assessment of the lower court judges, based on the value and scope of the evidence produced. Only a complaint of distortion of a clear clause can succeed, and it was rejected in the decision discussed. The argument is therefore fought before the lower courts.
Can a contract clause fix in advance which court will have jurisdiction?
The answer depends on the status of the parties and on how the clause is drafted. Between businesses, jurisdiction clauses are in principle allowed, subject to the conditions of validity and enforceability laid down by the applicable texts.
How do you prove where a service was performed when this is disputed?
Evidence is built from the documents recording the work: intervention sheets, acceptance records, visit reports, correspondence mentioning the site, and documents handed to the customer. The consistency of the contractual whole also matters, because judges read the contract in its overall scheme. An isolated clause relied on to attach the obligation to the provider's registered office carries little weight against consistent factual evidence.