Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Insufficient Proof of Notification Content
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal was deemed inadmissible because, although the relevant organic decree allows for the notification of an appeal to the opposing party via simple registered letter to facilitate service, the appealing party failed to provide irrefutable proof that the content of the registered letter specifically constituted notification of the appeal; the court reasoned that a mere acknowledgment of receipt from a registered letter does not necessarily confirm that the notification concerned the appeal, and since only such acknowledgments were produced, the appeal lacked the required proof, which normally requires an instrument drawn up by a public officer or sworn agent.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IANO 61-60.046; Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Insufficient Proof of Notification Content: The appeal was deemed inadmissible because, although the relevant organic decree allows for the notification of an appeal to the opposing party via simple registered letter to facilitate service, the appealing party failed to provide irrefutable proof that the content of the registered letter specifically constituted notification of the appeal; the court reasoned that a mere acknowledgment of receipt from a registered letter does not necessarily confirm that the notification concerned the appeal, and since only such acknowledgments were produced, the appeal lacked the required proof, which normally requires an instrument drawn up by a public officer or sworn agent.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IADispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IADécisions connexes
Généré par l'IAQuestions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator
Généré par l'IAThis provision regarding notification of the appeal is cited in the reasoning leading to the declaration of inadmissibility, which is the final order.
This is the case number associated with the final decision to declare the appeal inadmissible.
Texte complet
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI : ATTENDU QUE L'ARTICLE 23 DU DECRET ORGANIQUE DU 2 FEVRIER 1852 MODIFIE PAR LA LOI DU 30 MARS 1914, EN DISPOSANT QUE LE POURVOI EST DENONCE AU DEFENDEUR PAR SIMPLE LETTRE RECOMMANDEE N'A D'AUTRE BUT QUE DE FACILITER ET DE SIMPLIFIER LE MODE DE REMISE DE L'ACTE AUX INTERESSES, MAIS QU'IL NE DISPENSE PAS LE DEMANDEUR D'APPORTER LA PREUVE IRREFUTABLE DE L'EXISTENCE ET DE LA REGULARITE DE LA DENONCIATION ;
ATTENDU QU'IL NE RESULTE PAS NECESSAIREMENT DE L'ACCUSE DE RECEPTION D'UNE LETTRE RECOMMANDEE QUE LE CONTENU DE LADITE LETTRE PORTAIT NOTIFICATION DU POURVOI ;
ATTENDU QE L'EXISTENCE DE CETTE NOTIFICATION EST ETABLIE SANS CONTESTE, A L'AIDE D'UN ACTE DRESSE PAR UN OFFICIER PUBLIC OU PAR UN AGENT ASSERMENTE, LA VALEUR DE TOUS AUTRES MOYENS DE PREUVE ETANT SOUMISE AU CONTROLE ET LAISSEE A L'APPRECIATION DE LA COUR DE CASSATION ;
ATTENDU QU'EN L'ESPECE NE SONT PRODUITS QUE DES AVIS DE RECEPTION DE LETTRES RECOMMANDEES ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE LE POURVOI IRRECEVABLE. NO 61-60.046 SOCIETE ETABLISSEMENTS FUCHS C/ SYNDICAT C.G.T. DU LIVRE DE SAINT ETIENNE ET AUTRE. PRESIDENT : M. BROUCHOT. - RAPPORTEUR : M. GRIMOULT-DUBAR. - AVOCAT GENERAL : M. AMOR. DANS LE MEME SENS : 17 JUILLET 1961, BULL. 1961, II, NO 589, P. 413 ET LES ARRETS CITES.