A case study on the admissibility of a counterclaim for damages related to construction work before the judicial court, examining the jurisdiction and sufficient link required.
Extract
[...] Before the court, Madame Lemoine contests owing this amount, arguing that the work was poorly executed. She then files a counterclaim seeking to have Mr. Durand condemned to pay her 20,000 EUR in damages and interest to repair the disorders affecting her apartment. However, Mr. Durand replies that this counterclaim is inadmissible on the grounds that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the court seized. He argues that the action for repair of construction defects falls within the jurisdiction of the judge of contentious matters of protection (or possibly another specialized jurisdiction). [...]
[...] DURAND, sues Madame LEMOINE, defendant and beneficiary of the works, before the Judicial Court. He demands the payment of 15,000 euros for unpaid fees related to the aforementioned renovation works carried out in Madame Lemoine's apartment. The defendant contests owing this amount inasmuch as the works were poorly executed and files a counterclaim and more precisely the condemnation of Mr. Durand to pay her 20,000 EUR in damages and interest to repair the disorders affecting her apartment. Mr. DURAND, however, believes that for this counterclaim, the judicial court is not competent. [...]
[...] DURAND's original claim and Madame LEMOINE's counterclaim. A counterclaim for damages to construction works is receivable before the judicial court seized of an initial claim for payment of fees related to these works. In fact, no other judge is specifically responsible for contentious matters. In addition, there is a sufficient link between the initial claim and the counterclaim in this case. [...]
[...] However, a claim for compensation is receivable even in the absence of such a link, unless the judge may disjoin it if it risks delaying the judgment excessively." It is the case law that it is up to the judges of the first instance to assess whether the counterclaim is linked to the original claims by a sufficient link (Civ 1ère June 1978 or Civ 3ème June 1999) For example, it was ruled by the second civil chamber of the court of cassation on 25 June 1981 that there is a sufficient link between the initial claim for damages and the additional claim for resolution of a contract. In this case, the nature of Mr. DURAND's initial claim is financial. It relates to the payment by the beneficiary of the works he has carried out. This case is not, due to its nature, attributed to another jurisdiction. [...]
[...] The counterclaim of Madame LEMOINE also has a financial nature. Here, she is claiming compensation for damages to compensate for the disorders caused by the works. It is not, as Mr. DURAND claims, within the jurisdiction of the judge of the contentious protection who only intervenes limitatively in the missions entrusted to him by the Code of Judicial Organisation (judge of the guardianship of adults, actions aimed at expelling people, actions whose object, cause or occasion is a contract for the rental of a dwelling or a contract relating to the occupation of a dwelling, actions relating to the inscription and deletion from the national file recording information on payment incidents characterised by credits, etc.) The Code of Civil Procedure sets a condition for the Judicial Court to consider the counterclaim: the attachment of the counterclaim to the initial claim by a sufficient link. [...]
