Exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal: what every litigant must know

Imagine the scene: you are the owner of a business in Landivisiau. A supplier based in Morlaix sues you before the Lille Commercial Court, pursuant to a contractual clause that you signed without paying attention. You challenge the jurisdiction of this distant court. The Lille Commercial Court declares itself competent. You file a 'contredit' (appeal against this decision on jurisdiction). But here's the catch: which appeal court has jurisdiction to hear your appeal? The answer seems obvious: the court of appeal within whose district the court that rendered the decision is located. Yet, the Court of Cassation has just reminded us of a little-known but imperative rule: for disputes relating to Article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code (restrictive practices on competition), the Paris Court of Appeal has exclusive jurisdiction to rule on 'contredits'. This rule is a matter of public policy, meaning that the judges must raise it ex officio, even if neither party has invoked it. A decision of 20 October 2015 that can save your case... or sink it if you ignore it.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr. Dupont, manager of a small grocery store in Landivisiau, had signed a supply contract with the company Rocade, based in Morlaix. The contract contained a jurisdiction clause designating the Lille Commercial Court in the event of a dispute. In June 2012, the company Rocade sues Mr. Dupont before this court for non-compliance with payment terms. Mr. Dupont challenges the jurisdiction of the Lille court, arguing that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Brest Commercial Court, which is closer to his establishment. The Lille Commercial Court declares itself competent by judgment of 20 November 2012. Mr. Dupont files a 'contredit' before the Douai Court of Appeal, within whose district Lille is located. But the Douai Court of Appeal, in a judgment of 26 March 2013, confirms the jurisdiction of the Lille court. Mr. Dupont appeals to the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation, by a judgment of 20 October 2015, quashes the judgment of the Douai Court of Appeal. Why? Because the Douai Court of Appeal was not competent to rule on the 'contredit'! Indeed, since Decree No. 2009-1384 of 11 November 2009, 'contredits' filed against decisions rendered in disputes relating to the application of Article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal. Since this rule is a matter of public policy, the Douai Court of Appeal should have raised it ex officio, i.e., without the parties raising it. By failing to do so, it exceeded its powers. The case is therefore referred back to the Paris Court of Appeal, which must rule on the 'contredit'.

The reasoning of the court — dissected

The Court of Cassation relies on Article L. 442-6 of the Commercial Code, which penalises restrictive practices on competition (for example, obtaining an advantage without consideration). It recalls that the Decree of 11 November 2009 amended Article R. 442-2 of the Commercial Code to grant the Paris Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to hear 'contredits' filed against decisions of commercial courts ruling on their jurisdiction in disputes falling under this article. In other words, no matter whether the commercial court is in Lille, Lyon, or Brest: if the dispute concerns Article L. 442-6, it is always the Paris Court of Appeal that must decide the 'contredit'.

What few people know is that this rule is a matter of public policy. This means it cannot be set aside by the will of the parties. And above all, the judge must raise it ex officio, even if neither party invokes it. In the Rocade case, neither Mr. Dupont nor the company Rocade had challenged the jurisdiction of the Douai Court of Appeal. But that did not exempt the judges from verifying their own jurisdiction. In short, a court of appeal other than that of Paris cannot rule on a 'contredit' falling under Article L. 442-6, on pain of having its judgment quashed.

However, note that this exclusive jurisdiction only concerns 'contredits', i.e., specific appeals against decisions on jurisdiction. Once the jurisdiction of the commercial court is finally settled, the appeal on the merits can be brought before the territorial competent court of appeal. The Court of Cassation thus clarified that the Paris Court of Appeal is only seized of the 'contredit', not of the merits of the dispute. This is an important nuance for litigants.

This decision is a confirmation of previous case law. The Court of Cassation had already ruled in this sense in a judgment of 26 March 2013, but it reaffirms here forcefully that the lack of jurisdiction of a non-Parisian court of appeal is a procedural bar that must be raised ex officio. undefined, I have encountered cases where experienced lawyers had failed to check this point, resulting in months of wasted procedure.

What this changes for you — concretely

For a landlord owner: if you rent commercial premises and your tenant sues you for restrictive practices (for example, excessive rent), know that the 'contredit' on the court's jurisdiction must be brought exclusively before the Paris Court of Appeal. Do not let yourself be drawn before a regional court of appeal, on pain of nullity of the proceedings. Example with figures: a landlord in Morlaix who challenges the jurisdiction of the Brest Commercial Court must file his 'contredit' in Paris, which implies additional travel and lawyer costs (count €2,000 to €5,000 more).

For a commercial tenant: if you believe that your landlord imposes abusive conditions on you, you can invoke Article L. 442-6. But be careful: if the court declares itself incompetent, the 'contredit' must be brought in Paris. Do not delay in consulting a lawyer, as the deadlines for filing a 'contredit' are very short: 15 days from the judgment.

For a buyer or co-owner: even if you are not directly concerned by Article L. 442-6, this decision reminds you that in matters of jurisdiction, rules of public policy are imperative. If you are involved in a commercial dispute, always check that the court seized is indeed competent, including the avenues of appeal.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Systematically check the jurisdiction clause in your contracts. If it designates a distant court, negotiate its modification or provide for an alternative clause. In Landivisiau, prefer the Brest Commercial Court over that of Lille.
• Consult a lawyer as soon as you receive a summons. A lawyer specialised in property and commercial law can immediately identify whether the dispute falls under Article L. 442-6 and direct you to the Paris Court of Appeal for the 'contredit'.
• Strictly respect the deadlines for appeal. The 'contredit' must be filed within 15 days of the judgment. A delay is irreparable and you will lose all possibility of challenging jurisdiction.
• Anticipate the procedural costs in Paris. If the dispute involves Article L. 442-6, budget for a Parisian lawyer or a local lawyer who can travel. The cost of a 'contredit' procedure in Paris can vary from €3,000 to €8,000.

Further reading: related case law and developments

The decision of 20 October 2015 is part of a line of judgments reinforcing the centralisation of disputes relating to restrictive practices on competition. Already, the judgment of the Commercial Chamber of 26 March 2013 (No. 11-28.561) had established the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of the Paris Court of Appeal for 'contredits'. The present decision goes further by imposing the ex officio raising. Since then, the Court of Cassation has confirmed this position on several occasions, for example in a judgment of 8 December 2015 (No. 14-25.036).

This trend towards centralisation aims to ensure a uniform application of the law throughout the territory, thus avoiding divergences between courts of appeal. For litigants, this means greater predictability, but also a concentration of disputes in Paris, which can lengthen deadlines. In the future, it is possible that the legislature will extend this exclusive jurisdiction to other areas, such as consumer law.

What you absolutely must remember

FAQ

1. What is a 'contredit'? It is a specific appeal against a decision of a commercial court that declares itself competent or incompetent. It must be filed within 15 days.
2. Why is the Paris Court of Appeal competent for all 'contredits' falling under Article L. 442-6? Because the 2009 Decree centralised these appeals in Paris to harmonise case law on restrictive practices on competition.
3. What if I have already filed a 'contredit' before another court of appeal? It is imperative to request a referral to the Paris Court of Appeal. If the non-Parisian court of appeal has already ruled, you can appeal to the Court of Cassation.
4. What deadlines must be respected? The 'contredit' must be filed within 15 days following the judgment on jurisdiction. After this deadline, you lose all recourse.
5. How much does a 'contredit' procedure in Paris cost? Count between €3,000 and €8,000 in lawyer's fees, plus travel expenses if your lawyer is not based in Paris.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of procedure — and often much more. Book an appointment →