Employee Termination Appeal Procedural Challenge Rejection
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn appellant challenged a decision that dismissed his claim for damages due to the abusive termination of his employment contract, arguing the appellate court based its decision solely on the parties' personal appearance and witness testimonies, despite the record not showing the witnesses were sworn in, which he claimed violated procedural rules regarding form, reasoning, and legal basis. The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that since the appellant was personally present during the hearing where he gave explanations and the witnesses were heard, he had the opportunity to contest the regularity of the inquiry at that time and was therefore not permitted to raise this argument, which mixed fact and law, as a new claim before the high court.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAART. 2 DU LIVRE IV DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, ART. 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, ART. 74, ART. 142, ART. 252 A 280, ART. 263; Employee Termination Appeal Procedural Challenge Rejection: The high court rejected the appeal, reasoning that since the appellant was personally present during the hearing where he gave explanations and the witnesses were heard, he had the opportunity to contest the regularity of the inquiry at that time and was therefore not permitted to raise this argument, which mixed fact and law, as a new claim 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'IAThis provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
This provision is cited in the grounds for cassation, although the decision ultimately rejects the appeal on procedural grounds.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 74, 142, 252 A 280, SPECIALEMENT 263 ET 278 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, 74 DU DECRET 58-1292 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1958, 2 DU LIVRE IV DU CODE DU TRAVAIL ET 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, POUR VICE DE FORME, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE ;
ATTENDU QUE BERNARD REPROCHE A L'ARRET ATTAQUE DE L'AVOIR DEBOUTE DE SA DEMANDE EN PAIEMENT DE DOMMAGES-INTERETS POUR RUPTURE ABUSIVE DE SON CONTRAT DE TRAVAIL, EN SE FONDANT UNIQUEMENT SUR LA COMPARUTION PERSONNELLE DES PARTIES, AINSI QUE SUR L'AUDITION DES TEMOINS, ALORS QU'IL N'EST PAS MENTIONNE DANS L'ARRET QU'AUCUN DE CES DERNIERS AIT PRETE SERMENT AVANT DE DEPOSER ;
MAIS ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE BERNARD ASSISTAIT PERSONNELLEMENT A L'AUDIENCE AU COURS DE LAQUELLE, APRES SES EXPLICATIONS, LES TEMOINS DESIGNES PAR LES PARTIES ONT ETE ENTENDUS ;
QU'AYANT ETE AINSI A MEME DE CONTESTER LA REGULARITE DE L'ENQUETE A LAQUELLE IL A ETE PROCEDE EN SA PRESENCE, IL N'EST PAS RECEVABLE A EN DEMANDER LA NULLITE POUR LA PREMIERE FOIS DEVANT LA COUR DE CASSATION PAR UN MOYEN MELANGE DE FAIT ET DE DROIT, QUI EST NOUVEAU ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : REJETTE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ARRET RENDU LE 24 AVRIL 1971 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS