Court Composition Violation Invalidates Appellate Ruling
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe Court of Cassation quashed an appellate ruling rendered on March 21, 1960, because the decision was delivered by a panel that violated the law concerning the composition of judging bodies, specifically citing the requirement that court members must sit in a majority, as mandated by decrees from 1959 and 1960; the appellate ruling was issued by a panel consisting of a presiding counselor, a president designated by ordinance, and the most senior advocate present, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement for a majority of court members, leading to the annulment of the judgment and referral of the case to a different court of appeal for a new ruling.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IACourt Composition Violation Invalidates Appellate Ruling: The Court of Cassation quashed an appellate ruling rendered on March 21, 1960, because the decision was delivered by a panel that violated the law concerning the composition of judging bodies, specifically citing the requirement that court members must sit in a majority, as mandated by decrees from 1959 and 1960; the appellate ruling was issued by a panel consisting of a presiding counselor, a president designated by ordinance, and the most senior advocate present, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement for a majority of court members, leading to the annulment of the judgment and referral of the case to a different court of appeal for a new ruling.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis provision was cited as the ground for annulling the appealed decision because it was violated regarding the required majority of court members.
This provision was cited as the ground for annulling the appealed decision because it prolonged the provision concerning the required majority of court members.
Texte complet
SUR LE PREMIER MOYEN : VU L'ARTICLE 1E DU DECRET DU 6 MARS 1959 RELATIF A LA DELEGATION DE MAGISTRATS DANS LES COURS D'APPEL ET L'ARTICLE 1ER DU DECRET DU 12 FEVRIER 1960 PROROGEANT CETTE DISPOSITION JUSQU'AU 15 MAI 1960 ;
ATTENDU QU'AUX TERMES DU PREMIER DE CES TEXTES "LES MEMBRES DE LA COUR DOIVENT TOUJOURS SIEGER EN MAJORITE AUX AUDIENCES" ;
QU'IL RESULTE DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QU'IL A ETE RENDU, LE 21 MARS 1960, PAR M. BOITEL, CONSEILLER DOYEN, FAISANT FONCTION DE PRESIDENT, M. MECHADIER, PRESIDENT A LA SUITE DU TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE CAEN, DESIGNE PAR ORDONNANCE DU PREMIER PRESIDENT ET ME X..., AVOCAT AU BARREAU DE CAEN, LE PLUS ANCIEN DES AVOCATS INSCRITS...PRESENTS A LA BARRE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE L'ARRETE ATTAQUE A VIOLE LES TEXTES CI-DESSUS VISES ;
PAR CES MOTIFS, ET SANS QU'IL Y AIT LIEU DE STATUER SUR LE SECOND MOYEN DU POURVOI : CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE CAEN, LE 21 MARS 1960 ;
REMET EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRET ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL DE ROUEN. NO 60-11.750.MESNAGE C/ GASTEBOIS. PRESIDENT : M. BORNET. - RAPPORTEUR : M. GOUBIER. - PREMIER AVOCAT GENERAL : M. GAVALDA. - AVOCAT : M. GIFFARD.