In this case, the French company eBizcuss.com had been an authorised reseller of Apple-brand products since it entered into a contract in 2002 with the brand’s Irish subsidiary, Apple Sales International.

This contract included a clause granting jurisdiction to Irish courts in the event of a dispute.

Believing that it was the victim of unfair competition and anti-competitive practices imposed on independent distributors (refusal or delay in supplying new models when they were brought to market, delays in deliveries, etc.) following the creation of its own distribution network, eBizcuss sued Apple Sales International and Apple Retail France in the Paris Commercial Court.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the Irish courts had jurisdiction over the case.

The Court of Cassation had already issued a ruling on this case (Civ. 1, 7 October 2015, No. 14-16.898), submitting preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice so that it would clarify its case law on the subject, which it did in its ruling of 24 October 2018 (ECJ, 24 October 2018, rel. C-595/17).

Ruling again on this case, France’s highest judicial court applied the European Court of Justice’s solution by ruling that French courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

It ruled that the forum-selection clause should be enforced, as the alleged anti-competitive behaviour by the Apple companies was in relation to the contract containing the jurisdiction clause.

In spite of facts in this case with no relation to the contract, the court ruled in favour of enforcing the forum-selection clause contained in the contract, giving it truly extensive reach.

It is therefore important to be particularly careful both when drafting and analysing a contract containing this type of clause.