The French Court of Cassation has clarified its interpretation of jurisdictional clauses in contracts, aligning with the European Union’s Regulation Brussels I bis and the European Court of Justice’s (CJUE) rulings. The court accepts asymmetric clauses—those that give one party more choices in selecting a court—as long as the possible courts can be identified using objective criteria, such as specific courts, company headquarters, branches, asset locations, or general rules from the regulation or the Lugano II convention. It rejects clauses that allow one party to choose a court without clear legal boundaries or identifiable rules. In national law, the court applies this logic to the admissibility of exceptions to jurisdiction. Internationally, it is enough for a party to indicate that a case must be heard in a foreign state’s courts, provided that the specific court can be determined through the internal laws of that state. The court has referenced European jurisprudence, emphasizing that a clause doesn’t need to name the court explicitly but must include objective elements agreed upon by the parties to identify the competent court(s). In the SCI Saint-Joseph case, the court noted that these elements must be precise enough for the judge to determine their competence, often based on the specific circumstances of the case. The Court of Cassation has applied this standard to Regulation No. 44/2001 and Regulation Brussels I bis, citing rulings from 2025 that align with the CJUE’s Société Italiana Lastre decision. A clause is valid if it designates courts in EU member states or Lugano II countries, identifies precise objective elements to determine the court’s competence, and does not conflict with specific provisions of the regulation. The court emphasizes the importance of predictability, transparency, and legal security, stating that a clause is sufficiently precise if it refers to general competence rules from the Brussels I bis regulation or the Lugano II convention. The court has validated clauses that name specific courts in member states, such as the court of Brescia or the commercial court of Paris, as long as they refer to the general competence rules of the regulation or the Lugano II convention. In the Axa/Delta machines case, the court approved a clause that designated the Amtsgericht of Bielefeld and the Landgericht of Münster, allowing the supplier to bring a case before the branch’s headquarters or general jurisdiction, as long as these locations in Germany provided sufficient objective criteria. The court also validated a clause from the Edmond de Rothschild bank that designated the courts of Luxembourg, allowing for action at the client’s domicile or any other competent court, as long as the determination of the competent court followed general competence rules. The court has also accepted asymmetric clauses that grant one party a broader range of jurisdictions, provided that the possible courts remain determinable through objective criteria. It reaffirmed that the imbalance in a jurisdictional clause—granting more rights to one party—does not automatically invalidate the clause, as long as it meets the requirements of Regulation Brussels I bis. This marks a shift from previous rulings, such as the 2018 Credit Suisse case, where a clause allowing the bank to choose any court was deemed too vague. The court now emphasizes that the key factor is the presence of objective criteria, not the balance of rights between the parties.