Consumer Domiciled in France: Foreign Jurisdiction Clause Set Aside (French Supreme Court, 1st Civil Chamber, 25 March 2026, No. 24-21.422 and No. 24-21.790)

French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), First Civil Chamber, 25 March 2026, No. 24-21.422 and No. 24-21.790, published in the Bulletin and the Report

What is the background to this case law?

The Lebanese banking crisis is one of the most serious financial catastrophes of the 21st century. Since autumn 2019, hundreds of thousands of depositors have found themselves unable to access their bank assets. Lebanese banks have frozen accounts, imposed draconian capital controls and refused to honour the transfers requested by their customers.

This dramatic situation has given rise to massive litigation, particularly in France, where many French residents hold accounts in Lebanon. Among these depositors, some are dual French-Lebanese nationals, others are French people who worked in the Middle East, and still others have family ties in the region.

Faced with the influx of court claims, Lebanese banks have raised a systematic defence: the jurisdiction clauses inserted in account-opening contracts. These clauses designate the courts of Beirut as the sole courts competent to decide disputes. Yet bringing proceedings before the Lebanese courts in the current context is illusory: local courts are overloaded, proceedings are interminable, and the outcome remains uncertain given the scale of the systemic crisis.

The French courts were therefore confronted with a crucial question: should full effect be given to these clauses and depositors sent back to Beirut, or was there a legal basis for setting them aside in order to protect consumers resident in France?

It is in this context that the First Civil Chamber of the French Supreme Court handed down, on 25 March 2026, two leading rulings that represent a genuine revolution in private international consumer law.

What were the two cases examined by the French Supreme Court?

The two appeals brought before the French Supreme Court presented different factual situations, allowing the highest court to clarify the exact contours of consumer protection.

The case of the couple domiciled in Portugal

In the first case (No. 24-21.422), the claimants were a couple of French nationality. In 2016, while they were living in Spain, they had entered into an account-opening contract with the bank BLOM. This contract contained a jurisdiction clause designating the courts of Beirut as having sole jurisdiction.

When the banking crisis broke out and their funds were frozen, the spouses tried to obtain the execution of transfers from their accounts. Faced with the bank’s refusal, they decided to take legal action. However, at the time the proceedings were brought before the French courts, the couple was domiciled in Portugal.

The Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 25 September 2024, had declined the jurisdiction of the French courts, holding that the jurisdiction clause had to be given effect. The spouses appealed to the French Supreme Court.

The case of the depositor from Clamart

The second case (No. 24-21.790) concerned a French national domiciled in Clamart, in the Hauts-de-Seine. This depositor had entered into his first account agreements in Lebanon as early as 2002. In 2019, shortly before the crisis broke, he had signed a new contract with the bank BLOM, containing the same clause designating the courts of Beirut.

As in the first case, the bank had refused to honour the transfer requests once the accounts were frozen. The depositor then summoned the bank before the French courts. Unlike the couple in the first case, he was indeed domiciled in France at the time the proceedings were brought.

Yet the Paris Court of Appeal, in a judgment also handed down on 25 September 2024, had likewise declined the jurisdiction of the French courts, on the ground that the Brussels I bis European Regulation did not apply and that the jurisdiction clause therefore had to take effect.

Why did the Brussels I bis European Regulation not apply?

European Regulation No. 1215/2012, known as “Brussels I bis”, is the reference text on international jurisdiction within the European Union. This Regulation contains specific protective provisions for consumers, allowing them to sue their professional counterparty before the court of their domicile.

The notion of directed activity

However, the protection offered by the Brussels I bis Regulation is not automatic. It requires that one of two alternative conditions be met:

Either the professional (here, the bank) is domiciled in a Member State of the European Union.

Or the professional, even if established outside the Union, pursues commercial or professional activities in a Member State or directs such activities, by any means, to one or more Member States, and the contract falls within the scope of those activities.

In both cases examined, the bank BLOM was domiciled in Lebanon, a country that is not part of the European Union. The first condition was therefore not satisfied. It remained to be determined whether the second was, that is, whether the bank directed its activity towards France or another State of the Union.

The case of the French subsidiary

The depositors argued that the bank BLOM had a subsidiary in France, which in their view amounted to directing activity towards the territory of the Union. The French Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument.

It noted that the contracts had been concluded in Lebanon, drafted in Arabic, and without any involvement of the French subsidiary. The mere existence of a subsidiary is not enough to show that the parent bank directs its activity towards French territory. It would have to be established that the subsidiary played an active role in the conclusion of the contract or in the commercial relationship with the consumer.

This strict interpretation of the notion of “directed activity” is consistent with the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It nevertheless has the effect of depriving many consumers of the protection of the European regulation when they contract with professionals established in third States.

In view of this, the French Supreme Court could have stopped there and given effect to the jurisdiction clauses. It chose a far bolder path: creating an autonomous rule of French private international law, inspired by the protective logic of European law, but applicable even in the absence of directed activity.

What new principle did the French Supreme Court lay down?

The two rulings of 25 March 2026 establish a major development in French private international law. The French Supreme Court has indeed formulated a new principle, stated identically in both decisions, which now binds all lower courts.

A reminder of the classic rules

The French Supreme Court begins by recalling the general principles governing jurisdiction clauses in French private international law. These clauses are in principle lawful, that is, valid and enforceable, provided two conditions are met:

The dispute must be international in nature, which presupposes a foreign element (élément d’extranéité) (for example, a contract concluded abroad, with a foreign bank).

The clause must not defeat the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court. Certain matters (such as employment law or consumer law in certain situations) are indeed governed by mandatory jurisdiction rules that the parties cannot set aside by agreement.

In the cases examined, the international character of the dispute was beyond doubt: contracts concluded in Lebanon, with a Lebanese bank, governed by Lebanese law. The jurisdiction clauses should therefore, in principle, have been given effect.

The rule specific to consumer contracts

This is where the French Supreme Court brings about a genuine revolution. It formulates a new rule, autonomous from European law, and consistent with the principles of French private international law:

“A consumer cannot be deprived, by a clause designating a foreign court, of the right to bring proceedings before the French courts if he or she is domiciled in France on the date of the summons.”

This principle, which is now a rule of positive law binding on all, has several remarkable characteristics.

First, it is an autonomous rule of French private international law. It does not depend on the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation. It applies to all consumer contracts, whatever the nationality or location of the professional counterparty.

Second, this rule is inspired by the protective logic of European consumer law, but it considerably widens the conditions for access. Where the European regulation requires directed activity by the professional towards the territory of the Union, French law is satisfied with the consumer’s domicile in France.

Finally, it creates an incompatibility between the foreign jurisdiction clause and the right of a consumer domiciled in France to bring proceedings before the French courts. In practice, the clause becomes unenforceable against the French consumer.

The two cumulative conditions

To benefit from this protection, the claimant must satisfy two cumulative conditions, clearly identified by the French Supreme Court:

First condition: consumer status

The contract must have been concluded for a purpose outside any professional activity. This is the classic definition of a consumer, in line with the French Consumer Code (code de la consommation) and European law.

In both cases examined, these were banking contracts concluded in a personal capacity, for the management of private assets. Consumer status was therefore beyond doubt. The solution would be different if the account had been opened as part of a professional or commercial activity.

Second condition: domicile in France on the date of the summons

This second condition is of crucial importance. The domicile criterion is assessed not at the time the contract was concluded, but at the time the proceedings are brought, that is, on the date of the summons.

This solution has considerable practical consequences, which we examine in detail below. It allows a consumer who contracted abroad, while living there, to benefit subsequently from the protection of the French courts if he or she has in the meantime settled in France.

How were these principles applied in the two cases?

The French Supreme Court’s formulation of this new principle explains the divergent outcomes reached in the two appeals. These outcomes perfectly illustrate the importance of the timing criterion for domicile.

Dismissal of the appeal for the couple in Portugal

In the first case (No. 24-21.422), the French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by the couple of French nationality. The reasoning is clear: the spouses were domiciled in Portugal when the proceedings were brought before the French courts.

Yet the rule laid down by the Court requires domicile in France on the date of the summons. This condition was not met. It does not matter that the claimants hold French nationality, that they have ties with France, or that they previously lived in Spain. Only domicile at the time the proceedings are brought counts.

The Paris Court of Appeal was therefore right to decline the jurisdiction of the French courts. The couple will have to either bring proceedings before the Portuguese courts (if they can establish another basis of jurisdiction), or resign themselves to taking their action before the Lebanese courts designated by the clause.

This solution may seem rigorous, but it rests on a coherent logic: jurisdictional protection is attached to the consumer’s actual domicile on French territory, not to his or her nationality or personal ties with France.

Cassation for the depositor from Clamart

The second case (No. 24-21.790) illustrates the converse application of the same principle. The depositor was domiciled in Clamart, in the Hauts-de-Seine, on the date of the summons. He had moreover contracted as a consumer, for the management of his personal assets.

The two conditions laid down by the French Supreme Court were therefore met: consumer status and domicile in France on the date of the summons.

Accordingly, the Paris Court of Appeal could not deny him access to the French courts on the basis of the jurisdiction clause. In doing so, it had violated the principle of French private international law protecting consumers domiciled in France.

The French Supreme Court therefore set aside the appeal judgment, and did so on a ground raised of its own motion. This means that the French Supreme Court itself raised this ground for cassation, without waiting for the claimant to invoke it in his appeal. This procedural technique, reserved for the most serious violations of the law, shows the importance the highest court attaches to this consumer protection.

The case will therefore be remitted to another court of appeal (the court of remittal), which will have to re-examine the dispute on the merits, this time recognising the jurisdiction of the French courts.

What is the practical scope of this case law?

The two rulings of 25 March 2026 have considerable scope, both for depositors who are victims of the Lebanese banking crisis and, more broadly, for all French consumers contracting with foreign professionals.

Easier access to the French courts

The rule laid down by the French Supreme Court offers a protection that is far more accessible than that of the Brussels I bis European Regulation.

To understand this difference, the two regimes must be compared:

Under the Brussels I bis Regulation (applicable where the professional is established in the Union or directs its activity towards the Union):

The consumer can sue the professional before the court of his or her domicile.

But he or she must show that the professional directed its commercial or professional activity towards the Member State of the consumer’s domicile.

This condition of directed activity is often difficult to establish. It must be proved that the professional actively sought customers in that State, for example through targeted advertising, a website translated into the local language, the possibility of payment in the local currency, and so on.

Under the new French private international law regime:

The consumer can sue the professional before the French courts provided he or she is domiciled in France on the date of the summons.

No directed activity by the professional towards France is required.

It does not matter where and how the contract was concluded, in which language it was drafted, or whether the professional never sought to attract French customers.

This simplification is major. It allows consumers who would have been unsuccessful under European law to benefit nonetheless from the protection of the French judge.

The importance of the timing criterion

The choice of the moment at which domicile is assessed is one of the most innovative aspects of this case law. By adopting the date of the summons rather than that of the conclusion of the contract, the French Supreme Court makes a decisive protective choice.

The practical consequences are significant:

A French expatriate who opens a bank account abroad during his or her period of expatriation, then returns to France a few years later, will be able to bring proceedings before the French courts if he or she has a dispute with the bank, even if the contract was concluded abroad and contains a foreign jurisdiction clause.

Conversely, a French consumer who moves abroad before bringing his or her action will not be able to benefit from the protection of the French courts, even if he or she was domiciled in France when the contract was signed.

A dual national living alternately in France and abroad will need to ensure that he or she is domiciled in France at the time of summoning the counterparty.

This solution rests on a coherent logic: it is when the consumer goes to court that he or she needs the protection of a local judge, who speaks his or her language and applies a law he or she can understand. The place where the contract was concluded, often fortuitous or linked to temporary life circumstances, matters little.

Explanatory diagrams of the different scenarios

To fully understand the application of this new principle, let us examine different concrete scenarios through diagrams:

A general scope beyond banking contracts

Although these rulings were handed down in the specific context of the Lebanese banking crisis, their scope goes far beyond that framework.

The French Supreme Court states a general principle applicable to all consumer contracts, whatever their nature. The new principle of French private international law therefore applies to:

• Banking contracts (accounts, investments, loans) concluded with foreign banks.
• Insurance contracts taken out with companies established outside the European Union.
• Sale or service contracts concluded with foreign professionals.
• Travel, accommodation and transport contracts with operators located in third States.
• Energy supply, telecommunications or any other service contracts.
• The only requirement is that the contract was concluded by a consumer, that is, for a purpose unrelated to a professional activity.

This extension to all consumer contracts makes these two rulings a leading body of case law whose impact will go far beyond disputes linked to the Lebanese crisis alone. Any consumer domiciled in France now has a right of access to the French judge that cannot be taken away by a contractual clause.

Conclusion

The two rulings handed down by the First Civil Chamber of the French Supreme Court on 25 March 2026 mark a considerable advance in consumer protection in French private international law.

By establishing the principle that a consumer domiciled in France on the date of the summons may bring proceedings before the French courts notwithstanding any foreign jurisdiction clause, the highest court fills an important gap in positive law. This new rule, autonomous from European law, offers more accessible protection than that of the Brussels I bis Regulation, since it requires no activity directed by the professional towards French territory.

The criterion adopted, that of domicile on the date of the summons rather than at the conclusion of the contract, reflects a resolutely protective approach. It allows expatriates returning to France, dual nationals, or more generally anyone who contracted abroad but lives in France at the time of the dispute, to benefit from access to the French judge.

This case law has immediate practical significance for the many French residents holding accounts with Lebanese banks. It opens the way to an action in France, in their own language, before courts applying a law they can understand and with the assistance of French lawyers.

Beyond this specific litigation, a new principle of international consumer law has just been laid down. It will apply to all consumer contracts concluded with foreign professionals, whether banking, insurance, commercial or service contracts.

Foreign jurisdiction clauses, so common in international contracts, thus lose their systematically enforceable character against French consumers. The latter now have a fundamental right of access to their natural judge, that of their domicile, which cannot be taken away by a contractual stipulation.

This development in case law illustrates the French Supreme Court’s determination to ensure effective protection of weaker parties in international contractual relationships, drawing on the philosophy of European consumer law while creating an autonomous and more protective French regime.

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions