Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Procedural Non-Compliance in Expropriation Indemnity Case
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA party, represented by a lawyer who filed an appeal on September 16, 1971, against a decision fixing expropriation indemnity, submitted a notice of appeal which merely stated that the grounds for cassation would be developed in an amplifying brief; however, this amplifying brief was signed by a different lawyer, not the appellant or a legally qualified representative before the Court of Cassation, leading the court to rule that the appeal was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements stipulated in the relevant decree articles concerning the representation and substantiation of the appeal before the high court.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLES 21 ET 26 DU DECRET DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967; Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Procedural Non-Compliance in Expropriation Indemnity Case: A party, represented by a lawyer who filed an appeal on September 16, 1971, against a decision fixing expropriation indemnity, submitted a notice of appeal which merely stated that the grounds for cassation would be developed in an amplifying brief; however, this amplifying brief was signed by a different lawyer, not the appellant or a legally qualified representative before the Court of Cassation, leading the court to rule that the appeal was inadmissible due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements stipulated in the relevant decree articles concerning the representation and substantiation of the appeal before the high court.
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'IAThese articles contain the procedural requirements for filing an appeal that were not met, leading to the declaration of inadmissibility.
Texte complet
SUR LA FIN DE NON RECEVOIR, SOULEVEE D'OFFICE CONTRE LE POURVOI : VU LES ARTICLES 21 ET 26 DU DECRET DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967, ATTENDU QUE, PAR DECLARATION RECUE AU GREFFE DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER LE 16 SEPTEMBRE 1971, MAITRE X..., AVOUE, AGISSANT AU NOM ET COMME MANDATAIRE DE Y..., EN VERTU D'UN POUVOIR SPECIAL QUI LUI AVAIT ETE DONNE PAR CE DERNIER, A FORME UN POURVOI EN CASSATION CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER, EN DATE DU 7 MAI 1971, ET FIXANT L'INDEMNITE D'EXPROPRIATION DUE A Y... PAR L'ETAT FRANCAIS (MINISTERE DE L'EQUIPEMENT) ;
QUE LA DECLARATION DE POURVOI SE BORNE A ENONCER QUE " LES MOYENS DE CASSATION SERONT DEVELOPPES PAR MEMOIRE AMPLIATIF " ;
QUE CE MEMOIRE AMPLIATIF AYANT ETE SIGNE PAR MAITRE Z..., AVOCAT A LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER, ET NON PAR LE DEMANDEUR AU POURVOI OU PAR UN MANDATAIRE AYANT LEGALEMENT QUALITE POUR LE REPRESENTER DEVANT LA COUR DE CASSATION, DOIT ETRE ECARTE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE POURVOI, NON CONFORME AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DU TEXTE SUSVISE, DOIT ETRE DECLARE IRRECEVABLE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE IRRECEVABLE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 7 MAI 1971 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER AU PROFIT DE L'ETAT FRANCAIS (DIRECTION DEPARTEMENTALE DE L'EQUIPEMENT)