Cass. 1st civ., 12 March 2025, no. 23-22.051

In a ruling dated 12 March 2025, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation overturned a decision by the Paris Court of Appeal which had declined the jurisdiction of the French courts in a case of sudden termination of established commercial relations. It reaffirmed an essential principle: outside of a conventional or European framework, the international jurisdiction of French courts is assessed by extension of the rules of internal territorial jurisdiction, and the action based on Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code falls, at the international level, under the tort regime.

⚖️ The facts: a broken transatlantic commercial collaboration

In 2011, the French wine and spirits company Daucourt entered into a de facto agreement with the American company Palm Bay International Inc., which became its exclusive importer in the United States. The relationship was not formalised in a written contract, and no clause assigning jurisdiction was agreed.

Believing that he had suffered a sudden breach of this commercial relationship, Daucourt sued Palm Bay in a French court on 3 September 2019, on the basis of Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code (formerly L. 442-6, I, 5°), which sanctions the lack of reasonable notice in the event of the termination of an established commercial relationship.

Palm Bay raised an objection of international lack of jurisdiction, which the Paris Court of Appeal upheld, considering that the tacit relationship between the parties excluded any tortious qualification in the international order, which would deprive the French courts of jurisdiction.

🧭 At stake: the legal qualification of the action and its consequences in private international law

The Court of Cassation reiterates a consistent solution: in the international order, when neither an EU regulation nor an international convention governs jurisdiction, the French courts determine their jurisdiction by extension of the rules of internal territorial jurisdiction, subject to adaptations specific to international situations.

According to well-established case law (in particular Com., 6 Feb. 2007, no. 04-13. 178 and Com., 24 Oct. 2018, no. 17-25.672), an action based on Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code falls within the domain of tortious liability, even if the parties have maintained a tacit contractual relationship.

Thus, the applicant may refer the matter, pursuant to Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to:

• the court of the defendant’s place of residence;
• the court of the place where the harmful event occurred;
• or even the court within whose jurisdiction the damage was suffered.

In this case, the company Daucourt claimed to have suffered damage in France as a result of the breakdown of the commercial relationship. The French court therefore had jurisdiction.

🧑‍⚖️ Cassation: a salutary reminder of the principles

The Court overturns the appeal ruling: the court of appeal, by holding that only an action without a contractual link can be classified as a tort in the international order, has violated the applicable texts. It points out that an action for sudden breach, even in the presence of a tacit commercial relationship, remains tortious in nature under French private international law.

In fact, the Court states that to qualify the action for sudden termination of commercial relations, ‘in the international order, outside the scope of European Union law, this action is of a tortious nature’.

📌 To keep in mind

• Extension of internal rules to international rules: the international jurisdiction of French courts, in the absence of an international instrument, is assessed by extension of internal rules.
• Tortious qualification confirmed: the action based on Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code is tortious in nature, including when it occurs within the framework of a tacit contractual relationship of an international nature, outside of a European convention or international convention.

This decision thus confirms a classic line of French case law recognising the jurisdiction of French courts quite extensively in international disputes.

By Olivier VIBERT, lawyer at the Paris Bar,

KBESTAN, business law firm in Evreux and Paris.

www.kbestan.fr