A jurisdiction clause designating a foreign court remains enforceable against a consumer who was not domiciled in France on the date of the writ of summons (assignation). The first civil chamber sets aside Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which does not apply in international matters. Outside the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, consumer protection rests on a territorial test: only a consumer domiciled in France keeps the right to bring proceedings before the French courts.
The essentials
- Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which reserves jurisdiction clauses to parties which contracted in the capacity of traders, does not apply in international matters.
- A clause extending international jurisdiction is in principle lawful where the dispute is international and where it does not defeat the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court.
- A consumer domiciled in France cannot be deprived, by a clause designating a foreign court, of the right to bring proceedings before the French courts.
- A consumer who is not domiciled in France on the date of the writ of summons does not benefit from that protection: the clause designating a foreign court is enforceable against them.
- Where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State and the contract does not meet the conditions of Article 17 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, jurisdiction is governed by the law of the forum State, pursuant to Article 6, § 1, of that Regulation.
Which court for an international banking dispute?
The first civil chamber holds the clause designating a foreign court lawful and applicable, since the consumer clients were not domiciled in France on the date of the writ of summons. The decision discussed here (Civ. 1re, 25 March 2026, No. 24-21.422) dismisses the appeal to the Cour de cassation (France's highest civil court) and leaves standing the finding that the tribunal judiciaire (first-instance civil court) of Paris lacked jurisdiction, as held by the decision under appeal (CA Paris, 25 September 2024, No. 23/14955).
Two clients of French nationality opened an account in 1999 with a bank governed by Lebanese law, while they were domiciled in Côte d'Ivoire. In 2016, then residing in Spain, they entered into an account-opening agreement with that bank containing a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Beirut courts. In 2021, they did not obtain the transfer of their assets to a Portuguese bank. They brought proceedings before a French court while living in Portugal, and the bank objected that the French courts lacked jurisdiction.
The first civil chamber first sets aside the domestic basis relied on by the clients. Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure restricts the validity of jurisdiction clauses to parties which contracted as traders. That provision does not govern international disputes, and the decision says so plainly (free translation):
Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which deems unwritten clauses that are not agreed between parties which contracted in the capacity of traders, does not apply in international matters.
The decision then restates the principle that clauses extending international jurisdiction are lawful. Two cumulative conditions frame that principle: the dispute must be international, and the clause must not defeat the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court. The first civil chamber then states the limit specific to consumer contracts:
In the case of a contract concluded with a consumer, the consumer cannot be deprived, by a jurisdiction clause designating a foreign court, of the right to bring proceedings before the French courts if they are domiciled in France.
Applying that framework, the first civil chamber holds the clause lawful and applicable. The defendant bank was not domiciled in a Member State of the European Union, and the clause designated the court of a third State. The contract did not meet the conditions set out in Article 17 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, so that jurisdiction fell to be determined by the law of the forum State. The clients were domiciled in Portugal on the date of the writ of summons, not in France.
The fifth limb of the ground of appeal complained that the clause was potestative, in that it allowed the bank to choose the court. The first civil chamber holds it unfounded: the court of appeal exercised its unfettered discretion in construing the contract when it held that the clause unambiguously conferred jurisdiction on the Beirut courts where proceedings are brought against the bank. The other complaints did not warrant a specially reasoned decision.
What consequences for a non-resident client?
A consumer who does not live in France cannot rely on their status as a consumer alone to set aside a clause designating a foreign court. Consumer status is not enough: it opens the right to bring proceedings before the French courts only if the domicile is in France. The reasoning unfolds in two successive stages, not one.
First stage: check whether EU law applies. Where the defendant business is not domiciled in a Member State and the contract does not meet the conditions of Article 17 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, jurisdiction is governed by the law of the forum State. Second stage: apply the French principles of private international law. The foreign clause is then lawful, subject to the consumer's French domicile and to mandatory territorial jurisdiction.
The date chosen matters as much as the test itself. The first civil chamber assesses the consumer's domicile as at the date of the writ of summons. A French client living outside France when they bring their claim therefore cannot rely on that territorial protection. The consequence is direct: the French court seised declines jurisdiction and directs the claimants to pursue their claim before the designated court.
What the decision confirms and what it leaves open
The decision confirms that clauses extending international jurisdiction are in principle lawful and clearly states the test of domicile in France for consumer protection. It closes off the argument that Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure may be transposed to international disputes. As the case law stands on 25 March 2026, consumer protection outside the Brussels I bis Regulation is therefore measured by domicile, not by status alone.
Several questions remain open. The first civil chamber does not decide the fate of a clause that would in fact leave the business an unlimited choice of court: it merely notes that the reading of the clause was a matter for the unfettered construction of the lower court judges. Nor is the exact scope of the protection of a consumer domiciled in France illustrated here, since the clients were living in Portugal.
The decision under appeal had taken a broader route. It had held that the contracts had no close connection with the territory of a Member State, which deprived the clients of the provisions of the French Consumer Code relied on. It had also held that the clients had expressly waived the jurisdictional privilege under Article 14 of the French Civil Code.
How to secure a jurisdiction clause?
The drafting of the clause and the location of the parties' domicile determine whether the designation of a foreign court is effective. Two checks structure the analysis, for the business as much as for the client.
- Identify the defendant's domicile: if it is in a Member State, the Brussels I bis Regulation applies and the reasoning changes.
- Check whether the business directs its activity towards the Member State of the consumer's domicile, a condition laid down by Article 17 of the Regulation for consumer contracts.
- Locate the consumer's domicile on the date of the writ of summons, the only point in time used by the decision to assess access to the French courts.
- Draft the clause unambiguously: a formula combining the designation of a specified court with an option in favour of one party alone is exposed to construction by the lower court judges.
- Check that no mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court is set aside by the clause.
Checks before bringing proceedings before a French court
Before suing a foreign company in France, re-read the jurisdiction clause in the contract you signed and identify the court it designates. Then check where your domicile will be on the day the claim is brought, since this point determines access to the French courts for a consumer contract. Consider whether the other party is domiciled in a Member State and whether it directs its activity towards your State of residence. Keep dated evidence establishing your domicile and the circumstances in which the contract was concluded. An enforceable clause will lead the French court to decline jurisdiction, with the burden of litigation before the designated court.
Frequently Asked Questions
I am French but live abroad: can I sue my foreign bank in a French court?
It depends on where you were domiciled when the claim was brought. Under the decision of 25 March 2026, a consumer keeps the right to bring proceedings before the French courts, despite a clause designating a foreign court, only if they are domiciled in France. A French client living in Portugal when the action was started does not benefit from that protection: the clause designating a foreign court is enforceable and the French court declines jurisdiction.
Is a clause allowing the bank to choose the court void?
Such a clause is not automatically set aside. In the case decided on 25 March 2026, the clients argued that it was potestative because it gave the bank an unlimited choice of court. The first civil chamber rejected that complaint without ruling on the principle: the lower court judges had, in their unfettered discretion, read the clause as designating the Beirut courts where proceedings are brought against the bank. Drafting therefore remains decisive.
Does Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure protect a private individual in an international contract?
No. Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure deems unwritten those jurisdiction clauses that are not agreed between parties which contracted in the capacity of traders, but the decision of 25 March 2026 confirms that it does not apply in international matters. A private individual therefore cannot rely on that provision to defeat a clause designating a foreign court in an international contract.
Should a jurisdiction clause be negotiated before signing an international contract?
Yes, this clause deserves as much attention as price or delivery times. It determines which court will hear any future dispute, and therefore the language of the proceedings, their cost, their length and the applicable rules of evidence. Clearly designating a single court avoids later arguments about the meaning of the clause. A contract concluded at a distance with a party established outside the European Union calls for particular care on this point.
What happens in practice if the French court declines jurisdiction?
The court does not then rule on the merits of the dispute: it finds that another court must hear the case and directs the claimant to bring proceedings there. The costs incurred in the French proceedings are in principle lost, and the claimant is often ordered to pay court costs. Proceedings must then be started again before the designated court, with local counsel, translated documents and a potentially different applicable law.