Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 8 October 2025, No. 23-16.756 (partial cassation).
The Court of Cassation reiterates a principle of private international law: a validly stipulated foreign jurisdiction clause is binding on French courts, even when the dispute is indivisible between several defendants.
In other words, the special jurisdiction of the court of the domicile of one of the co-defendants (Article 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure) cannot take precedence over a valid international clause designating a foreign court.
The facts: a Monegasque construction site, international companies
In 2018 and 2019, the Monaco-based company Unica Realty entered into several contracts with companies in the an international group (hereinafter AA DESIGNS Ltd) for construction work in the Principality.
Some contracts were signed with AA Designs Ltd, an Irish company, and contained two essential clauses:
- a Monegasque choice of law clause;
- a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Monegasque courts.
Affiliated companies located in France and the United Arab Emirates also participated in the execution of the works.
Considering that the services had been poorly performed, Unica Realty sued all involved companies in the group in French courts in 2019 and 2020, seeking termination of the contracts and reimbursement of the sums paid.
The defendants, for their part, raised the lack of jurisdiction of the French courts in favour of the courts of Monaco, based on the jurisdiction clause.
The question: does the indivisibility of the dispute justify French jurisdiction?
The Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence rejected the objection of lack of jurisdiction.
It considered that the dispute was indivisible: as the services provided by several companies in the group were intertwined, the entire dispute formed a single economic operation, managed by the same representative.
Therefore, according to the court, it would be illogical to divide the dispute between Monaco and France.
The solution: the international clause takes precedence, even in cases of indivisibility
The Court of Cassation partially overturned the ruling.
The First Civil Chamber recalls a fundamental principle of international jurisdiction law:
« A clause attributing jurisdiction to a foreign court, validly stipulated, takes precedence over the special jurisdiction of the court of one of the co-defendants, even in cases of indivisibility of the dispute or interdependence of contracts. «
In other words, contractual intent takes precedence over internal procedural logic.
The fact that the contracts are linked or involve several companies is not sufficient to set aside the jurisdiction clause if it has been freely agreed between the parties.
The Court therefore overturned the appeal decision and referred the case back to the Montpellier Court of Appeal.
The scope: a reminder of the rigour of international jurisdiction law
This ruling is in line with previous case law: a jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court constitutes a rule of autonomy of will that French courts strictly respect, except in cases of manifest illegality or fraud.
Even when a dispute involves several parties located in different countries, French courts cannot declare themselves competent if there is a clear and valid clause in favour of a foreign court, such as Monaco in the present case.
The decision thus reminds practitioners of the importance of verifying the exact scope of jurisdiction clauses in international contracts: their effect is absolute, even when the case involves economic or contractual interdependence.
Particular attention must therefore be paid to the scope of jurisdiction clauses, especially in the case of a project involving various contracts, as an inconsistent choice of clauses will subsequently bind both the parties and the judges. Such a situation could make it difficult to pursue legal action in the event of a dispute.
Contractual freedom remains the cornerstone of private international law.
By Olivier VIBERT
KBESTAN
French Law . BLOG 