Architect Not Bound by Uncontested Expert Report
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appellate court wrongly held that a judicial expert report was enforceable against an architect who was subsequently sued by a co-ownership syndicate, even though the architect had been informed of the expert proceedings conducted earlier in a case against a contractor, because the architect had not participated in the expert operations as a named party to the original proceedings, violating the principle of adversarial proceedings which requires a party to be called or represented during expert operations for the report to be opposable against them.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 16 DU DECRET N° 71-740 DU 9 SEPTEMBRE 1971, ARTICLES 155 ET SUIVANTS DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, ARTICLES 273 ET SUIVANTS DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Architect Not Bound by Uncontested Expert Report: The appellate court wrongly held that a judicial expert report was enforceable against an architect who was subsequently sued by a co-ownership syndicate, even though the architect had been informed of the expert proceedings conducted earlier in a case against a contractor, because the architect had not participated in the expert operations as a named party to the original proceedings, violating the principle of adversarial proceedings which requires a party to be called or represented during expert operations for the report to be opposable against them.
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 article, along with others, was violated by the Court of Appeal in its decision, leading to the cassation.
These procedural articles concerning contradiction were considered violated by the Court of Appeal's ruling.
These procedural articles concerning contradiction were considered violated by the Court of Appeal's ruling.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : VU L'ARTICLE 16 DU DECRET N° 71-740 DU 9 SEPTEMBRE 1971 APPLICABLE A LA CAUSE, ENSEMBLE LES ARTICLES 155 ET SUIVANTS, 273 ET SUIVANTS DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE ;
ATTENDU QUE LE JUGE DOIT, EN TOUTES CIRCONSTANCES, FAIRE OBSERVER ET OBSERVER LUI-MEME LE PRINCIPE DE LA CONTRADICTION ;
QU'UNE EXPERTISE N'EST OPPOSABLE A UNE PARTIE QUE SI ELLE A ETE APPELEE OU REPRESENTEE A SES OPERATIONS ;
ATTENDU QUE, POUR CONDAMNER M X..., ARCHITECTE, A PAYER DIVERSES SOMMES AU SYNDICAT D'UNE COPROPRIETE QUI L'AVAIT ASSIGNE APRES UNE PROCEDURE SUIVIE CONTRE UN ENTREPRENEUR ET AU COURS DE LAQUELLE L'ARCHITECTE AVAIT PARTICIPE, POUR LE COMPTE DU SYNDICAT, A UNE EXPERTISE JUDICIARRE, L'ARRET INFIRMATIF ATTAQUE (10 JUILLET 1980) DECLARE CETTE EXPERTISE OPPOSABLE A M X..., AU MOTIF QU'AVANT MEME D'ETRE PARTIE EN DEFENSE, IL EN A ETE TOTALEMENT INFORME ;
QU'EN STATUANT AINSI, ALORS QUE M X... N'AVAIT PAS PARTICIPE AUX OPERATIONS DE L'EXPERTISE EN QUALITE DE PARTIE A L'INSTANCE AU COURS DE LAQUELLE ELLE AVAIT ETE ORDONNEE ET DILIGENTEE, LA COUR D'APPEL A VIOLE LES TEXTES SUSVISES ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 10 JUILLET 1980 PAR LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS ;
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 ROUEN.