Spotlight #26 — Bank deposits: consumers domiciled in France may now sue before the French courts
Depositors with Lebanese banks who are domiciled in France have a direct route to the French courts. Lead up avocats, a Paris-based firm dedicated to litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms, has analysed two rulings of the First Civil Chamber of the French Court of Cassation (No. 24-21.422 and No. 24-21.790), handed down on the same day, which establish a new rule of French private international law: a consumer domiciled in France at the date of the writ may bring proceedings before the French courts, notwithstanding any clause conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court. The rule is autonomous from the Brussels I bis Regulation. For the tens of thousands of French-resident depositors affected by the collapse of the Lebanese banking system in autumn 2019, it opens a procedural route in France.
Context: the Lebanese banking crisis and the litigation in France
Since autumn 2019, the Lebanese banking system has frozen depositor access to assets: capped withdrawals, blocked international transfers, currency unavailability. Lebanese banks have systematically relied, against French-resident clients, on the jurisdiction clauses inserted in their account agreements, designating the Beirut courts as exclusively competent. Bringing proceedings in Lebanon being in practice illusory given the congestion of local courts and the depth of the systemic crisis, depositors turned to the French courts.
The Paris Court of Appeal had, in several cases, declined jurisdiction by giving full effect to the Lebanese forum selection clause. The two rulings of 25 March 2026, formally published in the Court’s Bulletin and Annual Report, are rulings of principle: they overturn the restrictive approach of the Court of Appeal and establish a new rule of French private international law..
The two rulings of 25 March 2026: what is decided
The rulings No. 24-21.422 (dismissal, FS-B+R) and No. 24-21.790 (quashing with remand, FS-B+R) involve French depositors and the Lebanese bank Blom Bank Sal. The disputed contracts were concluded in Lebanon, drafted in Arabic, and governed by Lebanese law. The claimants had brought their action before the Paris Judicial Tribunal seeking the release of their frozen assets. The bank raised a jurisdictional objection based on a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of Beirut.
The First Civil Chamber laid down two cardinal rules. First rule: Article 48 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, which deems unwritten jurisdiction clauses agreed between non-merchants, does not apply in international matters. Clauses extending international jurisdiction are in principle lawful in cross-border disputes, provided they do not derogate from the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court. The solution continues a long-standing line of authority, which strictly distinguishes domestic from international jurisdiction.
Second rule, which constitutes the principal contribution of the rulings: a consumer cannot be deprived, by a clause designating a foreign jurisdiction, of the right to bring proceedings before the French courts if the consumer is domiciled in France at the date of the writ instituting proceedings. This rule is autonomous from the Brussels I bis Regulation. The Court recalls that the Regulation, the protective consumer section of which appears at Articles 17 to 19, does not apply where the professional is domiciled in a non-EU State and has not directed activities towards France. Such was the case of Blom Bank Sal: the mere existence of a French subsidiary with separate legal personality, playing no role in the conclusion of the disputed contract, does not characterise activities directed towards French territory within the meaning of Article 17 of the Regulation.
To fill this protective gap, the Court formulates an autonomous French rule, broader than that of the European Regulation, since it requires no directed activity and is satisfied by the consumer’s domicile in France at the date of the writ.
Application to the two cases: the date of the writ is decisive
The two cases illustrate the importance of the temporal criterion adopted by the Court.
In case No. 24-21.422, the claimants, French nationals, were resident in Portugal at the date of the writ. The condition of domicile in France not being satisfied, the forum selection clause favouring the Beirut courts was held enforceable and the appeal was dismissed. The Court also rejected the argument that the clause was potestative in nature, upholding the appellate court’s sovereign finding that the stipulation unambiguously conferred jurisdiction on the Lebanese courts where proceedings were brought against the bank.
In case No. 24-21.790, the claimant was domiciled in Clamart, in the Paris region, at the date of the writ. Both conditions were therefore satisfied: consumer status and domicile in France at the date of the document instituting proceedings. The Court of Cassation, by a ground raised ex officio, quashed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal that had refused to recognise French jurisdiction, and remanded the case to another Court of Appeal.
The contrast between the two cases reflects a strict requirement: neither the claimants’ French nationality, nor their previous residence, nor their family connections with France are sufficient. Only domicile at the time of seisin matters.
Scope: a new rule applicable to all consumer contracts
The scope of the two rulings extends well beyond the Lebanese litigation. They articulate a general rule, applicable to all consumer contracts concluded with a foreign professional, provided the consumer is domiciled in France at the date of the writ. The protection extends to all sectors (banking, insurance, sale, services), to professionals of any nationality, and regardless of the language or place of conclusion of the contract. The rulings continue the line of authority initiated by Cass. 1re civ., 18 September 2024, No. 23-13.732, which had begun to protect French residents in the litigation concerning blocked Lebanese deposits.
A welcome parallel: Credit Suisse AT1 holders
The rule articulated on 25 March 2026 might have found a particularly interesting application in the litigation concerning the Additional Tier 1 instruments issued by Credit Suisse, fully written down by FINMA decision of 19 March 2023. Holders domiciled in France could, assuming consumer status established under the standard of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Petruchová (C-208/18, 3 October 2019), have invoked the new rule to seise the Paris Judicial Tribunal against UBS, the issuer’s legal successor, despite the forum selection clause in favour of the Zurich courts.
That transposition runs, however, into a decisive obstacle: limitation. Under Swiss law, tort claims are subject to the relative three-year limitation period of Article 60 of the Code of Obligations, running from knowledge of the damage and of its author, that is, from 19 March 2023. The period expired on 19 March 2026. The state liability action against the Swiss Confederation, governed by Article 20 of the Federal Act on the Liability of the Confederation, mirrors those time limits. Only the contractual action remains, subject to the ten-year limitation period of Article 127 of the Code of Obligations, which will not expire until March 2033; but opening that route before the French courts would require, beyond jurisdiction, the application of Swiss law on the merits and the prospect of a judgment against UBS, both of which are far from straightforward.
It would have been illuminating for the same formulation to appear in a decision dealing directly with AT1 instruments, particularly to clarify the consumer characterisation applicable to private acquirers of listed financial instruments. The question remains open. We addressed the position of AT1 holders in our Spotlight #18, to which the reader is referred for a detailed analysis of the avenues of recourse under Swiss and international law.
How Lead up avocats can help
The team at Lead up avocats, in Paris, advises French-resident depositors with Lebanese banks on the implementation of the 25 March 2026 case law: consumer characterisation, coordination of proceedings, choice of the territorially competent court, anticipation of defences under Lebanese law, and management of recognition and enforcement issues. For a tailored analysis of your situation, contact our partners.