Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000006954397 Généré par l'IA

Appellate Court Judgment Validity Based on Presiding Judge's Unchallenged Report

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006954397
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The appellant argued that the appellate court's decision was invalid because it stated that it was rendered after hearing the report of the presiding judge assigned to the case, yet the case file contained no such written report, which was required by procedural law. The high court rejected this argument, reasoning that the statement in the judgment, affirming that the presiding judge presented a written report, served as proof of the report's existence until a formal challenge (inscription of falsehood) was lodged, and since no such challenge was made, the ground for appeal was unfounded.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE 79 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, ART. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF; Appellate Court Judgment Validity Based on Presiding Judge's Unchallenged Report: The high court rejected this argument, reasoning that the statement in the judgment, affirming that the presiding judge presented a written report, served as proof of the report's existence until a formal challenge (inscription of falsehood) was lodged, and since no such challenge was made, the ground for appeal was unfounded.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
arrêts en appréciation de validité nullité absolue du jugement argumentation motivée motivation écrite absence de preuve de partialité moyens invocables

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 79 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
The sole ground of appeal challenging the formal regularity of the judgment (lack of a written report) was deemed unfounded because the court minutes attested to the report's existence.
ART. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF
This provision is not explicitly cited in the dispositive, and since the provided text does not contain a dispositive section with numbered orders, no procedural or cost articles can be confirmed as being used in the final orders.
Généré par l'IA
JURITEXT000006961006
Appeal Court Ruling on Reporting Judge's Requirement Upheld
06-21146
Appeal Regarding Judgment Validity and Procedural Omissions
JURITEXT000006976698
Appellate Court Ruling Invalidated for Consideration of Unpleaded Defense
12-84655
Appeal Regarding Procedural Irregularities in Bench Composition and Judgment Reading Upheld
JURITEXT000007072219
Judgment Validity Challenge Based on Judge's Absence from Oral Arguments

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 79 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

The sole ground of appeal challenging the formal regularity of the judgment (lack of a written report) was deemed unfounded because the court minutes attested to the report's existence.

ART. 108 al. 1 let. a LTF

This provision is not explicitly cited in the dispositive, and since the provided text does not contain a dispositive section with numbered orders, no procedural or cost articles can be confirmed as being used in the final orders.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : ATTENDU QU'IL EST REPROCHE A L'ARRET CONFIRMATIF ATTAQUE DE MENTIONNER QU'IL A ETE RENDU APRES AUDITION DU CONSEILLER CHARGE DE SUIVRE LA PROCEDURE, EN SON RAPPORT ECRIT, ALORS QUE LE DOSSIER CONSTITUE, EN VERTU DES PRESCRIPTIONS IMPERATIVES DE L'ARTICLE 79 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, NE CONTIENT AUCUN RAPPORT ECRIT ;

MAIS ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET ENONCE : APRES AVOIR ENTENDU EN LA LECTURE DE SON RAPPORT ECRIT, M LE PRESIDENT LECAE, CHARGE DE SUIVRE LA PROCEDURE ;

QUE CES MENTIONS FONT FOI DE L'EXISTENCE DUDIT RAPPORT JUSQU'A INSCRIPTION DE FAUX ET QU'IL N'EST PAS ALLEGUE QU'UNE TELLE PROCEDURE AIT ETE INTENTEE ;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN N'EST PAS FONDE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 25 JUIN 1958 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS N° 58-12 767 DEMOISELLE X... C/ COMPAGNIE D'ASSURANCE SUR LA VIE L'ABEILLE PRESIDENT : M CAMBOULIVES, CONSEILLER DOYEN FAISANT FONCTIONS - RAPPORTEUR : M LAGET - AVOCAT GENERAL : M LEMOINE - AVOCATS : MM SAINT-MARC, PEIGNOT DANS LE MEME SENS : 29 MAI 1958, BULL 1958, IV, N° 657 (1°), 486