Can legal privilege under US law prevent the enforcement of a preparatory inquiry in futurum (literally for the future) ordered in France?
Under French law, preparatory inquiries in futurum are designed to establish or preserve evidence, most of the time in connection with a future trial. Their implementation may be hindered by several barriers, including business secrecy, professional secrecy, employees’ right to privacy, or else the interference with the specific procedure called saisie-contrefaçon (i.e. search and seizure to document and establish infringements of IP rights).
In a decision issued on November 3, 2016, the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) ruled on the tricky issue of how to accommodate the protection of professional secrecy and the right to evidence in an international context.
Is it possible to set aside the application of the provisions set forth in Article L. 441-6 of the French Commercial Code that limits payment terms in contracts for the international sale of goods entered into between French suppliers and foreign clients (based in one of the EU Member States) when such contract is governed by the law and subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the State where the clients are established? In such a case, is it possible for the French administrative authorities to sue the contractual parties before a French court on the basis of the provisions of the French Commercial Code?
These were the questions asked to the Commission d’examen des pratiques commerciales (Commercial Practices Review Committee, hereinafter the “CEPC”) by a lawyer in a letter dated December 10, 2013 and to which it provided some answers in its opinion n°16-1 issued on January 14, 2016 .
Unilateral (or asymmetrical) jurisdiction clauses may vary in form and nature. However, such clauses always provide for an option to only one of the parties allowing it to choose the court that will be competent in case of a dispute.
The validity of such unilateral jurisdiction clauses has been brought into question by several jurisdictions, starting with the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court). In its eBizcuss decision dated October 7, 2015 , the Cour de Cassation has provided an answer to the following question: Can a jurisdiction clause allow/enable one of the parties to bring its claims before a court other than the court it designates?
In a decision dated March 25, 2014, the Commercial Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (French Supreme Court) ruled on the sensitive issue of the determination of the law applicable in case of breach of business relationships .
After 10 years of application, Council Regulation (EC) N°44/2001 of December 22, 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (known as "Brussels I Regulation") is being recast.
Ce site utilise des cookies pour vous proposer une expérience de navigation personnalisée. En utilisant ce site, vous acceptez notre usage des cookies comme expliqué dans nos Mentions Légales
Merci de lire nos Mentions Légales pour plus d'informaiton sur notre usage des cookies.AccepterEn savoir plus au sujet des cookies