SPOTLIGHT #28 – From rule to courtroom: the first application of the 25 March 2026 decision to Lebanese bank depositors
Is the rule laid down by the French Court of Cassation on 25 March 2026 an autonomous head of jurisdiction? The Paris judicial court answers yes in a case management order of 25 August 2026 (9th chamber, 2nd section, case no. 24/10777, unreported), the first known application of that decision. Lead up, an international litigation and arbitration firm based in Paris, analyses what it means for depositors of Lebanese banks.
Our Spotlight #26 set out the two rulings of the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 25 March 2026 (no. 24-21.422 and no. 24-21.790) and the rule they state: a consumer domiciled in France on the date of the writ cannot be deprived, by a jurisdiction clause designating a foreign court, of the right to seise the French courts. The exact scope of that rule remained open to argument. That is precisely what the defendant bank disputed before the Paris judicial court.
The case: a jurisdiction clause designating the Beirut commercial court
In September 2008, a Lebanese national domiciled in France signed, at the premises of Bank Audi France, the French subsidiary of the Lebanese bank Bank Audi SAL, an account opening agreement for an account held in Lebanon by Bank Audi SAL. The subsidiary acted solely as a third party certifying the signature. After deposits were frozen, the depositor sued Bank Audi SAL in Paris by writ of 27 August 2024. The bank objected to jurisdiction, relying on article XIII of the agreement, which designates the Beirut commercial court to hear “all disputes connected with the accounts or arising from them”.
Stage one: the Brussels I bis Regulation is set aside
The case management judge first considered section 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis, which allows a consumer to sue in the courts of his own domicile (article 18(1)). That forum is available only where the conditions of article 17 are met, failing which article 19, which governs jurisdiction clauses, is itself inapplicable (Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, 25 March 2026, no. 24-21.790, para. 10). Article 17(1)(c) requires the trader to direct its activities towards the consumer’s Member State. Such targeting is assessed before the contract is concluded, on the basis of a bundle of indicia revealing, in the words of the order, the targeting of customers such as to show the trader’s intention to trade in the country of the consumer’s domicile (see CJEU, 7 December 2010, Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof, joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09).
According to the case management judge, the presence of a French subsidiary does not establish activity directed towards France. Article 17(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation deems a trader domiciled in a Member State only where it has a branch, agency or other establishment there, structures which in principle lack separate legal personality. A subsidiary, by contrast, is a distinct company with its own assets. Accordingly, under the principle of separate legal personality, the presence of Bank Audi France does not show that its parent directed its activities towards France. That reading is not beyond dispute: the Court of Justice has accepted that a legally independent company bearing the same name and acting as an extension of its parent may constitute an establishment within the meaning of article 5(5) of the Brussels Convention (ECJ, 9 December 1987, Schotte, case 218/86).
The case management judge then set aside the other indicia relied on by the depositor: a “.com” domain name, the accessibility of the website from the European Union, its translation into several languages, and accounts denominated in euros. These features were held insufficient to establish the targeting of French customers, even though Pammer lists the use of a currency or a top-level domain name other than those of the trader’s State among the relevant indicia. The order distinguished the Saradar bank precedents by a concrete criterion, a bank employee sent to the client’s home in France, and declined to follow English decisions founded on the canvassing of the Lebanese diaspora. Likewise, the circumstances of the signature show no directed activity, the account agreement having been legally concluded in Lebanon.
Stage two: French general law upholds the clause
With the European Regulation set aside, the case management judge turned to the general rules of French private international law. Under French private international law, a jurisdiction clause is in principle lawful on two cumulative conditions: the dispute must be international, and the clause must not defeat the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court. Both criteria were met. The contract, drafted in English, was concluded in Lebanon between a Lebanese national and a bank whose registered office is in Lebanon and which is governed by Lebanese law, and the prohibition laid down in article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only in the domestic order. The clause designating the Lebanese courts is therefore lawful.
The unfair terms regime was also set aside. Articles L. 231-1 and L. 232-1 of the Consumer Code make its application conditional on a close connection between the contract and a Member State, which was absent here, the contract having been concluded in Lebanon without any specific offer or advertising in France. The judge added that the depositor’s procedural conduct, having twice sued in Lebanon, showed the absence of any significant imbalance to his detriment.
Stage three: the clause is nonetheless unenforceable
The case management judge then applied the rule laid down by the First Civil Chamber on 25 March 2026 (no. 24-21.790): a consumer “cannot be deprived, by a jurisdiction clause designating a foreign court, of the right to seise the French courts if domiciled in France”.
The bank argued that the ruling merely rendered such clauses unenforceable, without creating an autonomous head of jurisdiction, a sufficient connection between the contract and France remaining necessary. The judge rejected that reading and held that the Court of Cassation had created a new substantive rule of conflict of jurisdictions, to protect the consumer as the weaker party and as claimant, the only condition being his domicile in France on the date of the writ. The jurisdictional objection was dismissed. The expression “autonomous head of jurisdiction” is the bank’s own: the order, rejecting its reading, speaks of a “substantive rule” and bases the jurisdiction of the Paris judicial court solely on the depositor residing within its district.
The lesson is clear. Every other basis had been ruled out: the European Regulation, the unfair terms qualification, and the close connection with France. Yet the clause is deprived of effect. The rule of 25 March 2026 therefore operates not as a corrective dependent on consumer law, but as a head of jurisdiction in its own right. The significance of the outcome is all the clearer because the depositor is a Lebanese national: unlike the claimants before the Court of Cassation on 25 March 2026, all of whom were French nationals, he could not rely on article 14 of the Civil Code.
Finally, it should be noted that the order sets the clause aside “without there being any need to rule on the notion of denial of justice”, that subsidiary head of jurisdiction in French private international law.
The reasoning of the order may be summarised as follows.
| Basis examined | Condition required | Outcome |
| Consumer forum (Brussels I bis, articles 17 and 18) | Activity directed towards France, assessed before the contract was concluded | Set aside: a subsidiary is neither a branch nor an agency, and the indicia relied on are insufficient |
| Lawfulness of the clause (French private international law) | An international dispute and no encroachment on mandatory French jurisdiction | Clause lawful |
| Unfair terms (Consumer Code, articles L. 231-1 and L. 232-1) | A close connection between the contract and a Member State | Set aside: contract concluded in Lebanon, with no specific offer or advertising |
| Rule of the Court of Cassation of 25 March 2026 | Consumer status and domicile in France on the date of the writ | Applied: clause unenforceable, the Paris judicial court has jurisdiction |
What the decision adds
For the depositor, two elements suffice: consumer status and domicile in France on the date of the writ. Neither the location of the account, nor the place where the contract was concluded, nor the governing law stands in the way.
For the foreign bank, the defence shifts towards international lis pendens, the authority of the Lebanese decisions already rendered, and the merits, none of which the order decides.
One caveat remains. This is an unreported case management order, given at first instance and open to appeal under the conditions of article 795 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case was adjourned to 13 October 2026 for submissions on the merits. It signals a trend, it does not settle it.
Lead up advises depositors and financial institutions from Paris in international banking disputes: consumer qualification, jurisdictional strategy and the coordination of parallel proceedings. To have your file reviewed, see our expertise or contact the firm’s partners.