Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

French Supreme Court Keeps Flashairlines Case in France

April 30, 2009/7 Comments/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

In a previous post, I had reported how the Paris Court of Appeal had accepted to rule on its jurisdiction and to decline it in order to send back a case to the United States.

French victims of a plane crash in Egypt had first sued Boeing and some of its subcontractors in Los Angeles. The District Court had declared itself forum non conveniens, but made the dismissal conditional on “a French Court’s acceptance of jurisdiction“. The French victims had subsequently initiated proceedings in France for the sole purpose of obtaining a declaration that French courts lacked jurisdiction. The Paris Court of appeal had entertained the claim and had indeed accepted to decline jurisdiction.

Today, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) reversed and set aside the judgment of the Paris Court of appeal. It did so, however, on very narrow grounds. It held that, as a matter of French civil procedure, no appeal was allowed from the first instance court to the Paris court of appeal. This is because the first instance court had only ruled on a procedural point (the admissibility of the jurisdictional challenge), and no appeal can be immediately lodged against such decisions under French civil procedure.  

The consequence is that the parties are now back before the first instance court of Bobigny. The interim procedural decision had declared that a party could not possibly file suit before a court and then challenge its jurisdiction. Such challenge had been held inadmissible, and the Bobigny Court had directed the parties to argue the merits of the case. Instead, the parties had appealed. The appeal was dismissed and the parties are now meant to get back to where they were, i.e. the merits of the case.

After the judgment of the Court of appeal declining jurisdiction, the plaintiffs hoped to be able to get back to the U.S. Court and argue that, in fact, there was no available court in France, as French courts had declined jurisdiction. As of today, there is a French court available. The plaintiffs must now argue the merits of the case before the first instance court. An appeal will then be available where the parties will have an opportunity to challenge the first instance decision, on the merits but also on the admissibility of the jurisdictional challenge (again).

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2009-04-30 14:55:422009-04-30 14:56:27French Supreme Court Keeps Flashairlines Case in France
7 replies
  1. Dr. Oliver L. Knöfel says:
    May 2, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Dear Gilles,
    is there any official citation for the fresh judgment of the Cour de Cassation (or even the text of the decision)? I would be most obliged if I could lay my hands on it. As I see the matter, the “French forum conveniens”-decision of CA Paris 6.3.2008 (Clunet 136 [2009], 171) seems not be reversed on substantial grounds, but still gives a very remarkable example of a flexible approach to international procedural co-operation.

  2. Gilles Cuniberti says:
    May 2, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    Oliver,

    quite clearly, the official reason for reversing the decision is a mere technicality of French civil procedure. Now, let’s face it: judges are not Weber’s automats, but think of the consequences of their decisions. So, I think it is not immaterial that the result of the decision is that the case stays in France instead of being sent back to the US. It was widely reported in the French media that the advocate general before the Cour de cassation said during the hearing that it was not acceptable for a party to petition a court and then challenge its jurisdiction.

    I would say that the most likely opinion of the judges on the Cour de cassation is either a split (so the judgement would be a compromise) or the view that there is no reason to favor a return to the US.

    Is this international judicial cooperation? I am not sure.

    Gilles

  3. Dr. Oliver L. Knöfel says:
    May 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    The whole Flash Airlines affair shows a certain approach to international judicial cooperation that is, as I am tempted to say, a post-modern one (see Knöfel, IPRax 2009, p. 46). A pre-modern French Court would have decided the case simply because the dead were French. A modern French Court would have done the same and explored what happened in the Red Sea, relying on the French agreements on international judicial assistance (for example, since 1982, there is an agreement with Egypt, where the plane went down). But the Cour d’Appel said quite clearly: Let the plaintiffs go the US, because US pre-trial discovery is better than any of our conventions (The judgment says the following: „Les pouvoirs d’investigations judiciaires vis-à-vis des sociétés américaines sont plus larges aux Etats Unis en raison de la procédure de pre-trial discovery, inaccessible au juge français qui ne pourrait qu’user de commissions rogatoires dans différents Etats américains.“). This is quite remarkable as a certain “style” of international judicial cooperation, isn’t it?

  4. Gilles Cuniberti says:
    May 2, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    I fully agree that the reasons given by the Court of appeal are indeed quite remarkable in this respect. I was referring to the mindset of the judges on the Cour de cassation, who have not, to say the least, demonstrated anything getting close to any transnational judicial cooperation.

    But even if we still consider the judgment of the Court of appeal, it is far from clear that the court really had such a cooperation inclination. To begin with, it would not be the first court in the world to work hard to get its nationals in a US forum hoping that they would be better compensated. Would that be cooperation? And even then, this so-called cooperation resulted in a court contradicting the findings of the US court in almost all respects. That does not seem to me to be very “cooperative” in character.

  5. Dr. Oliver L. Knöfel says:
    May 2, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    The Cour d’Appel said: “Let the Americans do the job” – but France, as we all know, does not liberally permit pre-trial discovery IN FRANCE, and recently, a French lawyer was even prosecuted for being involved in certain US discovey efforts (Cass. 12.12.2007, Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 97 (2008), 626 note Chilstein). As far as the “co-operation” topic is concerned, the Cour said that its judgment was to be understood in the “contexte de confiance mutuelle qui appelle à une coopération et une coordination des différents systèmes de droit.“

  6. Ana Miranda says:
    November 2, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Very interesting. Thanks for sending it!
    Best Regard
    Ana Miranda

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
Link to: ECJ Judgment: Apostolides Link to: ECJ Judgment: Apostolides ECJ Judgment: Apostolides Link to: Article on the Dichotomy of Substance and Procedure Link to: Article on the Dichotomy of Substance and Procedure Article on the Dichotomy of Substance and Procedure
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top