Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
70-13231 Généré par l'IA

Cassation for Lack of Proof of Magistrate Participation in Judgment

Numéro de cause 70-13231
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

The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment because the stated facts indicated that the appellate court ruling was based on the written report of a specific counselor who was present for the reading of the report, but the subsequent mention of the judges present at the public hearing did not include that counselor, thus violating procedural articles requiring proof that the magistrate responsible for presenting the written report participated in the judgment, rendering the decision null due to a public order defect.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLES 81-6 ET 470 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, 81-6; Cassation for Lack of Proof of Magistrate Participation in Judgment: The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment because the stated facts indicated that the appellate court ruling was based on the written report of a specific counselor who was present for the reading of the report, but the subsequent mention of the judges present at the public hearing did not include that counselor, thus violating procedural articles requiring proof that the magistrate responsible for presenting the written report participated in the judgment, rendering the decision null due to a public order defect.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
magistrat vice de procédure jugement par défaut motifs de cassation audience publique défaut de preuve

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLES 81-6 ET 470 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
These articles of the Code of Civil Procedure were violated because the challenged judgment was rendered without the participation of the magistrate who presented the written report.
81-6
This article was violated because the magistrate who presented the written report did not participate in the rendering of the judgment.
Généré par l'IA
62-12656
Procedural Defect in Judicial Decision Content
87-82070
Assize Court Judgment Quashed for Failure to Rule on Defense Submissions Regarding Absent Witness
01-14561
Cassation for Lack of Proof of Service of Prosecutor's Submissions
79-11186
Nullification of Judgment for Lack of Judicial Participation
14-17005
Case Quashed for Failure to Rule on Procedural Conclusions and Denial of Fair Hearing

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLES 81-6 ET 470 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

These articles of the Code of Civil Procedure were violated because the challenged judgment was rendered without the participation of the magistrate who presented the written report.

81-6

This article was violated because the magistrate who presented the written report did not participate in the rendering of the judgment.

470

This article was violated as it implies the procedural requirement for a magistrate's participation which was not met.

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 PREMIER MOYEN : VU LES ARTICLES 81-6 ET 470 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE ;

ATTENDU QUE TOUT ARRET DOIT CONTENIR LA PREUVE QUE LE MAGISTRAT CHARGE DE PRESENTER A L'AUDIENCE LE RAPPORT ECRIT PRESCRIT PAR LA LOI A CONCOURU AU JUGEMENT DE L'AFFAIRE, TOUTE DECISION RENDUE SANS LA PARTICIPATION DE CE MAGISTRAT ETANT ENTACHEE DE NULLITE D'ORDRE PUBLIC ;

ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE ENONCE, D'UNE PART, OUI M LE CONSEILLER PEYRE EN LA LECTURE DE SON RAPPORT ECRIT, ET, D'AUTRE PART, AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE TENUE PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE NIMES-PREMIERE CHAMBRE-CE JOUR TREIZE MAI 1970, OU ETAIENT PRESENTS MESSIEURS, BRUNEL, PRESIDENT FOURTOUL, CONSEILLER BESSOUS, CONSEILLER ;

ATTENDU QU'IL RESSORT DE CES MENTIONS QUE L'ARRET A ETE RENDU SUR LE RAPPORT D'UN MAGISTRAT QUI N'A PAS PARTICIPE A SON PRONONCE ;

EN QUOI, L'ARRET A VIOLE LE TEXTE SUSVISE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 13 MAI 1970, PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE NIMES ;

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 MONTPELLIER.