Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Improper Service Documentation
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal was deemed inadmissible because, although the appellant served notice of the appeal to the opposing party via registered mail as permitted by the relevant decree, this method of notification, intended only to simplify service, did not substitute for the requirement that an original appeal document, established by a bailiff or sworn agent, be produced before the Court of Cassation to allow verification of its existence, date, and regularity; the sole production of the mailing receipt was therefore insufficient for the Court to exercise its control.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAAppeal Inadmissibility Due to Improper Service Documentation: The appeal was deemed inadmissible because, although the appellant served notice of the appeal to the opposing party via registered mail as permitted by the relevant decree, this method of notification, intended only to simplify service, did not substitute for the requirement that an original appeal document, established by a bailiff or sworn agent, be produced before the Court of Cassation to allow verification of its existence, date, and regularity; the sole production of the mailing receipt was therefore insufficient for the Court to exercise its control.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IACited as the basis for declaring the appeal inadmissible due to insufficient formality in serving the appeal (lack of bailiff's instrument).
Texte complet
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI : ATTENDU QUE LE DEMANDEUR EN CASSATION JUSTIFIE AVOIR DENONCE LEDIT POURVOI AU DEFENDEUR PAR LETTRE RECOMMANDEE;
MAIS, ATTENDU QUE L'ARTICLE 23 DU DECRET ORGANIQUE DU 2 FEVRIER 1852 MODIFIE PAR LA LOI DU 30 MARS 1914, S'IL DISPOSE QUE LE POURVOI EST DENONCE AU DEFENDEUR PAR SIMPLE LETTRE RECOMMANDEE, N'A D'AUTRE EFFET QUE DE FACILITER ET SIMPLIFIER LE MODE DE REMISE DE L'ACTE AUX INTERESSES, MAIS N'EXCLUT PAS LA NECESSITE DE L'ETABLISSEMENT D'UN ORIGINAL PAR UN HUISSIER OU UN AGENT ASSERMENTE, NON PLUS QUE SA PRODUCTION DEVANT LA COUR DE CASSATION, POUR PERMETTRE A CELLE-CI D'EN VERIFIER L'EXISTENCE, LA DATE ET LA REGULARITE;
QUE LE RECEPISSE JOINT AU POURVOI EST INSUFFISANT POUR QUE LA COUR DE CASSATION PUISSE EXERCER SON CONTROLE;
DECLARE, EN CONSEQUENCE, IRRECEVABLE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE LE JUGEMENT RENDU LE 22 FEVRIER 1960 PAR LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE DE CLERMONT-FERRAND.