Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Defective Cassation Grounds and Unauthorized Brief Submission
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA party's appeal against a decision by the Expropriation Judge was deemed inadmissible because the initial appeal filing, though signed by an attorney acting under a special power of attorney, failed to state any grounds for cassation, and the subsequent amplifying brief, signed only by that attorney without justification of a specific power to submit that brief, was treated as unfiled, rendering the entire appeal non-compliant with the required procedural formality mandating that the brief be signed by the appellant or a legally qualified representative before the High Court.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 26 DU DECRET N 67-1210 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967; Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Defective Cassation Grounds and Unauthorized Brief Submission: A party's appeal against a decision by the Expropriation Judge was deemed inadmissible because the initial appeal filing, though signed by an attorney acting under a special power of attorney, failed to state any grounds for cassation, and the subsequent amplifying brief, signed only by that attorney without justification of a specific power to submit that brief, was treated as unfiled, rendering the entire appeal non-compliant with the required procedural formality mandating that the brief be signed by the appellant or a legally qualified representative 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'IAThe appeal was declared inadmissible because it did not comply with the requirements of this article, specifically concerning the content of the recourse.
Texte complet
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI, CONTESTEE PAR LA DEFENSE : VU L'ARTICLE 26 DU DECRET N 67-1210 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1967, ATTENDU QUE, PAR DECLARATION RECUE LE 25 MAI 1973 AU GREFFE DU TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE NANCY, ME NOEL, AVOCAT A LA COUR D'APPEL DE NANCY, AGISSANT AU NOM ET COMME MANDATAIRE DE LUCIEN X..., EN VERTU D'UN POUVOIR SPECIAL QUI LUI AVAIT ETE DONNE PAR CE DERNIER, A FORME UN POURVOI CONTRE UNE ORDONNANCE RENDUE LE 6 NOVEMBRE 1972 PAR LE JUGE DE L'EXPROPRIATION DU DEPARTEMENT DE MEURTHE-ET-MOSELLE AU PROFIT DU DISTRICT URBAIN DE NANCY;
ATTENDU QUE LA DECLARATION DE POURVOI NE FORMULE AUCUN MOYEN DE CASSATION;
QUE LE MEMOIRE AMPLIATIF PRODUIT ULTERIEUREMENT EST SIGNE PAR L'AVOCAT SUSVISE, SANS QU'IL JUSTIFIE D'UN POUVOIR SPECIAL A CETTE FIN;
QUE LE MEMOIRE AINSI PRODUIT, NON SIGNE PAR LE DEMANDEUR AU POURVOI OU PAR UN MANDATAIRE AYANT LEGALEMENT QUALITE POUR LE REPRESENTER DEVANT LA COUR DE CASSATION, DOIT ETRE ECARTE;
ATTENDU QUE LE POURVOI, NON CONFORME AUXEXIGENCES DU TEXTE SUSVISE, DOIT ETRE DECLARE IRRECEVABLE;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE IRRECEVABLE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ORDONNANCE RENDUE LE 6 NOVEMBRE 1972 PAR LE JUGE DE L'EXPROPRIATION DU DEPARTEMENT DE MEURTHE-ET-MOSELLE