- fr
- en
Protection of bank depositors residing in France and defrauded abroad
Depositors v. Lebanese banks: the Court of Cassation grants access to French courts to consumers – bank depositors – provided they are resident in France at the time of the summons.
Cass. civ. 1, 25 March 2026, No. 24-21.422— Cass. civ. 1, 25 March 2026, No. 24-21.790, published in the Bulletin and Report of the Court of Cassation
The Lebanese banking crisis, which erupted in autumn 2019 and deprived hundreds of thousands of depositors of access to their assets, continues to fuel litigation regarding depositors’ access to French courts. It is against this backdrop that the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation delivered, on 25 March 2026, two landmark judgments published in the Bulletin and Report of the Court of Cassation, which establish the rule that a consumer has access to the French courts if they are domiciled in France on the date of the summons, notwithstanding a jurisdiction clause designating the Lebanese court.
I. The facts and the proceedings
Both cases involved BLOM Bank. In the first case (No. 24-21.422), a couple of French nationality, domiciled in Portugal at the time the proceedings were brought, had entered into an account opening agreement in 2016 – whilst residing in Spain – containing a clause designating the courts of Beirut. In the second case (No. 24-21.790), the claimant, a French national domiciled in Clamart (Hauts-de-Seine), had entered into account agreements in Lebanon in 2002, and then signed a new contract in 2019 containing the same stipulation. In both cases, requests for transfers from the frozen bank accounts had been refused, and the Paris Court of Appeal had, in two judgments of 25 September 2024, declined the jurisdiction of the French courts.
II. The inapplicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation
The consumer protection regime provided for by European Regulation No 1215/2012, which allows the consumer to bring proceedings before the court of his or her domicile, presupposes that the bank is domiciled in an EU Member State or that it directs its business towards an EU Member State. The Court of Cassation refused to accept that the existence of a subsidiary of the bank in France constituted a directing of its business towards the territory of the Union. It stated that the contracts had been concluded in Lebanon, in Arabic, without any involvement of the subsidiary, and that, as the European text could not apply, jurisdiction had to be determined by reference to the principles of French private international law.
III. Extension under French law of the right of jurisdiction of a consumer contracting with a foreign trader
The Court first reiterates the general principle: under the rules of private international law, clauses conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court are valid provided that the dispute is international and that the clause does not undermine the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of a French court. It then sets out the specific rule applicable to consumer contracts: a consumer may not be deprived, by a jurisdiction clause designating a foreign court, of the right to bring proceedings before the French courts if he is domiciled in France on the date of the summons.
This principle, formulated identically in both judgments, now constitutes a rule of French private international law, independent of European law, inspired by the protective logic of European Regulation No 1215/2012 but which broadens the conditions for access to it. Two elements suffice: the status of consumer – that is to say, the conclusion of the contract for a purpose unrelated to any professional activity – and domicile in France on the date of the summons.
IV. Divergent solutions depending on the parties’ circumstances
The application of this principle explains the divergent solutions adopted. In the first case (No. 24-21.422), the appeal was dismissed: the spouses were domiciled in Portugal at the time the proceedings were brought, and the condition of domicile in France was not met.
In the second case (No. 24-21.790), the Court quashed the appeal judgment on a ground raised of its own motion. The Court of Appeal, having found that the claimant was domiciled in Clamart at the time the proceedings were brought and that he had entered into the contract as a consumer, could not deny him access to the French courts.
V. Practical implications
These judgments give rise to several observations. Firstly, they enshrine in general law the protection of consumers against jurisdiction clauses – without requiring that the trader have directed its activities towards France – a condition that is often impossible to meet when the other party to the contract is a bank established in a third country. The rule is thus more accessible than that of Regulation No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis.
Secondly, the temporal criterion adopted – domicile in France on the date of the summons, rather than on the date the contract was concluded – is decisive. A depositor who signed their contract abroad but was resident in France at the time of bringing the action is entitled to protection; conversely, a depositor who is resident abroad when the proceedings are brought cannot rely on it, even if they were domiciled in France at the time of signing.
These decisions have considerable practical implications for the many French residents holding accounts with Lebanese banks. Any depositor domiciled in France who qualifies as a consumer may bring proceedings before the French courts, notwithstanding any contractual clause to the contrary. Although handed down in the context of disputes between banks and depositors, the scope of these judgments extends well beyond banking contracts, as a new principle of international consumer law has just been established.