French Supreme Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Paternity Claim against Alain Delon

In a judgment of 23 May 2024, the French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) ruled that French courts have jurisdiction to entertain a paternity claim against French actor Alain Delon. The Court of Appeal of Orleans had declined jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff had brought proceedings in France instead of Switzerland for the purpose of obtaining the application of German law.

Background

Alain Delon, who passed away earlier this month, was one of the greatest French actors of the second part of the 20th century. He was intense and intensely handsome, and had relationships and affairs with many women, including actresses Romy Schneider and Mireille Darc, and possibly German model and singer Nico.

Christa Päffgen, known as Nico, was a model, but is most famous for being the lead singer of the Velvet Underground. In 1961, she had an affair with Delon. On 11 August 1962, she gave birth to a son, Aaaron, that Alain Delon always refused to recognise. Remarkably, however, Aaron was raised by Delon’s mother, Edith Boulogne. He became known as Ari Boulogne, and claimed that he was Delon’s son for decades. He took drugs, including with his mother, and eventually died of an overdose in 2023.

Alain Delon had three (official) children: two sons (Anthony and Alain Fabien) and a daughter (Anouchka). He decided that the daughter would inherit half of his wealth, which triggered a fight among the three children. As the actor was getting weaker, part of the fight focused on whether he should move to (or remain in, or come back to) Switzerland, where his daughter lives. Switzerland appears to offer a number of legal advantages, but it seemed that the sons were afraid that such move would result in their sister having more control. Certainly, Alain Delon passed away in his French property in Loiret, France, where he wanted to be, and was eventually, buried.

But Ari Boulogne had long initiated proceedings to have the paternity of Alain Delon recognised… and invite himself to the party. After his death, his children continue the fight.

Choice of Law

The May 2024 judgment is about jurisdiction. But the real issue was choice of law, and Alain Delon’s lawyers indeed made an argument that French courts should decline jurisdiction on a choice of law ground.

The two potential fora were France and Switzerland. Delon was long a Swiss resident, and had also acquired Swiss nationality.

As far as Switzerland is concerned, I understand that Article 68 of the Swiss PIL Statute provides that filiation is governed by the law of the habitual residence of the child (i.e. Ari), at least if one of the parents resides there. It is therefore likely that a Swiss court would have applied French law to the paternity claim. An important issue under French law is whether the claim is time barred, as Ari Boulogne had a 10 year time limit to bring the claim after he turned 18.

In contrast, under French PIL, Article 311-14 of the Civil Code provides for the application of the national law of the mother (i.e. Nico), which in this case would be German law. It seems that the understanding of French lawyers is that the paternity claim would not be subject to any time limit under German law. Of note is that French courts would accept a renvoi if German PIL provided for the application of French law.

The 17 year old daughter of Ari Boulogne had initiated proceedings in Switzerland, but dropped them, and instead took over the claim brought by her father before French courts.

Jurisdiction

So the issue of jurisdiction is critical for the purpose of determining the status of Ari Boulogne.

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal of Orleans declined jurisdiction on the ground that Delon was domiciled in Switzerland. It is unclear at which point in time this assessment was made. It could have important consequences for the purpose of determining the law governing the succession of the actor.

But Ari Boulogne was a French national. He was therefore entitled to rely on Article 14 of the French Civil Code, which provides for nationality based jurisdiction. And the defendant, Alain Delon, was also a French national, which granted jurisdiction to French courts pursuant to Article 15 of the Civil Code.

The Orleans Court of Appeal refused to apply any of these provisions on the surprising ground that the goal of the plaintiff was to avoid the application of French law. The reasoning was not completely clear, as the court referred to the French law of ‘territorial jurisdiction’, which makes little sense (the jurisdiction of French courts was always going to be governed by French law), but the court probably meant French substantive law. Even framed in this more positive light, the argument was unconvincing. It is quite possible that the plaintiff wanted to sue in France to secure the application of German law but the French lawmaker has determined that parenthood should be governed by the national law of the mother, which means that, in this particular case, French law deems that the application of German law is more appropriate to assess the paternity of Alain Delon.

The Cour de cassation dismissed the argument by simply ruling that, where applicable, Article 14 of the French Civil Code is mandatory for French courts. This confirms that the court has not intention of granting any discretion to French courts in the application of these controversial provisions, as was long advocated by some French scholars. In the present case, however, it is hard to see why a French court would not be an appropriate forum to entertain an action on personal status between two French nationals.

(The children of) Ari Boulogne should thus have his (their) day in (a French) court.