Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
79-42662, 80-40538 Généré par l'IA

Annulment of Judgment Following Reversal of Intervention Admissibility Ruling

Numéro de cause 79-42662, 80-40538
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige struck_off
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An employee, having been dismissed, claimed various indemnities from the original employer and, for the first time on appeal, joined the successor company which had taken over the operations. The Court of Appeal initially allowed this intervention and later issued a judgment ordering the successor company to pay damages for unfair dismissal while rejecting the employee's claims for notice pay, and conversely, awarded the successor company damages against the employee for commercial prejudice. However, because a prior appellate court decision that had deemed the intervention admissible was subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court, the challenged judgment, being consequential to the annulled decision, was also annulled in its entirety, leading the Supreme Court to rule that there was no longer any need to rule on either of the appeals.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE 625 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, non-lieu à statuer; Annulment of Judgment Following Reversal of Intervention Admissibility Ruling: The Court of Appeal initially allowed this intervention and later issued a judgment ordering the successor company to pay damages for unfair dismissal while rejecting the employee's claims for notice pay, and conversely, awarded the successor company damages against the employee for commercial prejudice. However, because a prior appellate court decision that had deemed the intervention admissible was subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court, the challenged judgment, being consequential to the annulled decision, was also annulled in its entirety, leading the Supreme Court to rule that there was no longer any need to rule on either of the appeals.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
licenciement abusif effets d'un arrêt d'annulation annulation de sentence arbitrale annulation de la décision administrative rectification de la décision destitution d'exécuteur testamentaire

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 625 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
This article was cited in relation to the connection of the appeals, although the final decision was based on the consequential nullity of the appealed decision.
non-lieu à statuer
The court explicitly rules there is no need to rule on either appeal because the appealed decision was annulled by consequence.
Généré par l'IA
96-40175
Employee Dismissal Case Overturned Due to Annulled Prior Judgment
12/02141
Employee Dismissal Following Annulment Judgment Upheld as Unjustified
12-25274
Rectification of Judgment Annulled Due to Quashed Underlying Decision
24-13990
Employee Reimbursement Following Annulment of Provisionally Enforced Judgment
15/00180
Employee Termination Following Overturned Dismissal and Abandoned Disciplinary Action

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 625 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

This article was cited in relation to the connection of the appeals, although the final decision was based on the consequential nullity of the appealed decision.

non-lieu à statuer

The court explicitly rules there is no need to rule on either appeal because the appealed decision was annulled by consequence.

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

VU LA CONNEXITE, JOINT LES POURVOIS N° 79-42662 DE LA SOCIETE NOUVELLE DES ETABLISSEMENTS JUMFIL ET N° 80-40538 DE M X... ;

VU L'ARTICLE 625 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE ;

ATTENDU QUE M X..., AYANT RECLAME A LA SOCIETE JUMFIL QUI L'AVAIT LICENCIE, DIVERSES INDEMNITES, A EGALEMENT APPELE EN INTERVENTION POUR LA PREMIERE FOIS, DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL LA SOCIETE NOUVELLE DES ETABLISSEMENTS JUMFIL QUI AVAIT REPRIS L'EXPLOITATION ;

QUE PAR UN PREMIER ARRET DU 8 JANVIER 1979, LA COUR D'APPEL A DECLARE RECEVABLE CETTE INTERVENTION ;

QUE PAR L'ARRET ATTAQUE DU 15 OCTOBRE 1979, ELLE A CONDAMNE LA SOCIETE NOUVELLE A M X... DES DOMMAGES-INTERETS POUR LICENCIEMENT SANS CAUSE REELLE ET SERIEUSE, TOUT EN REJETANT SA DEMANDE D'INDEMNITE ET DE PREAVIS, ET, SUR LA DEMANDE RECONVENTIONNELLE FORMEE PAR LA SOCIETE NOUVELLE DES ETABLISSEMENTS JUMFIL, A CONDAMNE M X... A PAYER A CELLE-CI DES DOMMAGES-INTERETS EN REPARATION D'UN PREJUDICE COMMERCIAL ;

ATTENDU, CEPENDANT, QUE L'ARRET DU 8 JANVIER 1979 AYANT ETE ANNULE PAR ARRET DE LA COUR DE CASSATION (CHAMBRE SOCIALE), DU 2 AVRIL 1981, L'ARRET ATTAQUE, QUI EN EST LA SUITE, S'EST TROUVE ANNULE, PAR VOIE DE CONSEQUENCE, EN TOUTES SES DISPOSITIONS ;

PAR CES MOTIFS : DIT N'Y AVOIR LIEU A STATUER SUR AUCUN DES DEUX POURVOIS .