Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
JURITEXT000006955424 Généré par l'IA

Immovable Property Company v. Employee: Competence of Labor Jurisdiction and Preclusive Effect of Prior Judgment

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006955424
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An individual sued an immovable property company for unpaid wages before the labor court, and a prior, unappealed decision by the labor council in 1953 declared it competent to rule on the claim. Subsequently, when ruling on the appeal of a subsequent labor council decision that granted the employee's claim, the Civil Tribunal declared the labor jurisdiction incompetent, which the highest court found to be an improper revision of the prior, final competence ruling because the appeal judgment, due to the devolutive effect of appeal, could only review the appealed decision of June 29, 1953, and not the earlier, unappealed decision of February 26, 1953, leading to the cassation of the tribunal's judgment.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE 1351 DU CODE CIVIL, PRINCIPE DE L'EFFET DEVOLUTIF DE L'APPEL, NO 5.520 PH; Immovable Property Company v. Employee: Competence of Labor Jurisdiction and Preclusive Effect of Prior Judgment: Subsequently, when ruling on the appeal of a subsequent labor council decision that granted the employee's claim, the Civil Tribunal declared the labor jurisdiction incompetent, which the highest court found to be an improper revision of the prior, final competence ruling because the appeal judgment, due to the devolutive effect of appeal, could only review the appealed decision of June 29, 1953, and not the earlier, unappealed decision of February 26, 1953, leading to the cassation of the tribunal's judgment.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
révision d'une décision immeuble conflit de compétence prud'homale examen en cassation droit d'emption du preneur violation d'obligations contractuelles de travail

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 1351 DU CODE CIVIL
Cited as the legal basis (along with the principle of devolution) for the cassation decision, implying the application of the principle of res judicata which prevents the lower court from reconsidering a previously settled jurisdictional issue.
PRINCIPE DE L'EFFET DEVOLUTIF DE L'APPEL
Cited as the legal basis (along with Article 1351 of the Civil Code) for the cassation, as the appellate court could not review an issue settled by a prior, unappealed decision.
NO 5.520 PH
This is likely a procedural reference/identifier used in the dispositive section, related to the overall case handling or internal numbering, though its exact legal function isn't specified as a substantive law provision.
Généré par l'IA
90-45158
Property Company v. Former Employee (Wrongful Termination Appeal)
90-44897
Dispute Over Employment Status and Labor Court Jurisdiction
95-40975
Appeal Regarding Competence of Labor Court Summary Jurisdiction
17-20160
Unfair Dismissal After Finding of Inaptitude: Jurisdiction Between Labor Court and Workers' Compensation Court
90-41709
Company v. Employee: Summary Jurisdiction in Wage Claims

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 1351 DU CODE CIVIL

Cited as the legal basis (along with the principle of devolution) for the cassation decision, implying the application of the principle of res judicata which prevents the lower court from reconsidering a previously settled jurisdictional issue.

PRINCIPE DE L'EFFET DEVOLUTIF DE L'APPEL

Cited as the legal basis (along with Article 1351 of the Civil Code) for the cassation, as the appellate court could not review an issue settled by a prior, unappealed decision.

NO 5.520 PH

This is likely a procedural reference/identifier used in the dispositive section, related to the overall case handling or internal numbering, though its exact legal function isn't specified as a substantive law provision.

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 : VU L'ARTICLE 1351 DU CODE CIVIL ET LE PRINCIPE DE L'EFFET DEVOLUTIF DE L'APPEL ;

ATTENDU QUE PRETENDANT AVOIR ETE EMPLOYEE COMME CONCIERGE PAR LA SOCIETE CIVILE IMMOBILIERE DU 1ER ARRONDISSEMENT, DAME Y... A FORME DEVANT LA JURIDICTION PRUD'HOMALE UNE DEMANDE EN RAPPELS DE SALAIRES CONTRE CETTE SOCIETE ;

ATTENDU QUE, PAR UNE PRECEDENTE DECISION DU 26 FEVRIER 1953, QUI N'A ETE FRAPPEE D'AUCUN RECOURS, LE CONSEIL DES PRUD'HOMMES S'EST DECLARE COMPETENT POUR STATUER SUR LADITE DENANDE ;

OR, ATTENDU QUE, STATUANT SUR L'APPEL DE LA SENTENCE PRUD'HOMALE DU 29 JUIN 1953 RENDUE EN SUITE ET EN CONSEQUENCE DE CE PREMIER JUGEMENT ET AYANT FAIT DROIT A LA DEMANDE DE LA SALARIEE, LE TRIBUNAL A DECLARE LA JURIDICTION PRUD'HOMALE INCOMPETENTE ;

D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE QUI N'ETAIT SAISI QUE DE L'APPEL DE LA SENTENCE PRUD'HOMALE DU 29 JUIN 1953 NE POUVAIT REVENIR SUR LA DECISION DU 26 FEVRIER 1953 QUI NE LUI ETAIT PAS DEFEREE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE LE JUGEMENT RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES PAR LE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DE LA SEINE LE 29 SEPTEMBRE 1954 ;

REMET EN CONSEQUENCE LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT JUGEMENT ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE VERSAILLES. NO 5.520 PH. DAME Y... C/ SOCIETE IMMOBILIERE DU 1ER ARRONDISSEMENT. PRESIDENT : M. VERDIER. RAPPORTEUR : M. DURAND. AVOCAT GENERAL :

M. X.... AVOCAT : M. COULET.