Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
82-60247 Généré par l'IA

Union Representative Designation Challenge Admissibility Due to Procedural Error and Adversarial Principle Violation

Numéro de cause 82-60247
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The lower court declared a union representative designation challenge inadmissible because it was filed by registered letter rather than the required simple declaration to the clerk, a ground the judge raised sua sponte; the high court quashed this judgment, reasoning that the judge violated the principle of adversarial proceedings by raising this objection of inadmissibility on their own initiative without inviting the parties to present their observations as required by civil procedure law.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE L412-13 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, ARTICLE 16 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Union Representative Designation Challenge Admissibility Due to Procedural Error and Adversarial Principle Violation: The lower court declared a union representative designation challenge inadmissible because it was filed by registered letter rather than the required simple declaration to the clerk, a ground the judge raised sua sponte; the high court quashed this judgment, reasoning that the judge violated the principle of adversarial proceedings by raising this objection of inadmissibility on their own initiative without inviting the parties to present their observations as required by civil procedure law.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
griefs de procédure procédure contradictoire représentant syndical moyens invocables jugement civil registre de l'état civil

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE L412-13 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL
This article was cited by the lower court as the basis for declaring the dispute inadmissible, which is the procedural issue that led to the application of Article 16 CPC.
ARTICLE 16 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE
The Court of Cassation used this article as the main ground for cassating the judgment because the lower court raised an objection of inadmissibility ex officio without allowing the parties to present their arguments (violating the principle of contradiction).
Généré par l'IA
06-60182
Union Representative Designation Timeliness Dispute
06-60067
Timely Challenge Rejection and Procedural Violation in Union Representative Designation Case
96-60393
Appeal Regarding Union Delegate and Representative Designations and Procedural Mandate
04-60436
Union Representative Designation Dispute and Procedural Defect
87-60254
Union Representation Appeal Procedural Noncompliance

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE 16 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE

The Court of Cassation used this article as the main ground for cassating the judgment because the lower court raised an objection of inadmissibility ex officio without allowing the parties to present their arguments (violating the principle of contradiction).

ARTICLE L412-13 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL

This article was cited by the lower court as the basis for declaring the dispute inadmissible, which is the procedural issue that led to the application of Article 16 CPC.

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

SUR LE TROISIEME MOYEN, QUI EST PREALABLE : VU L'ARTICLE 16 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE, ATTENDU QUE LE JUGE DOIT, EN TOUTE CIRCONSTANCE, FAIRE OBSERVER ET OBSERVER LUI-MEME LE PRINCIPE DE LA CONTRADICTION ;

ATTENDU QUE LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE A DECLARE D'OFFICE IRRECEVABLE LA CONTESTATION DE LA SOCIETE SAMUA DE LA DESIGNATION, LE 27 FEVRIER 1982, PAR LA CFDT, DE HENRI X... COMME DELEGUE SYNDICAL DANS SON ENTREPRISE, AU MOTIF QUE LA CONTESTATION AVAIT ETE PORTEE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE, NON PAR VOIE DE SIMPLE DECLARATION AU GREFFE, COMME LE PRESCRIT L'ARTICLE L412-13 DU CODE DU TRAVAIL, MAIS PAR UNE LETTRE RECOMMANDEE NE PERMETTANT PAS DE VERIFIER L'IDENTITE DU DECLARANT ;

QU'EN RELEVANT AINSI D'OFFICE UNE FIN DE NON-RECEVOIR SANS INVITER LES PARTIES A PRESENTER LEURS OBSERVATIONS, LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE A VIOLE LE TEXTE SUSVISE ;

PAR CES MOTIFS, ET SANS QU'IL Y AIT LIEU DE STATUER SUR LES AUTRES MOYENS : CASSE ET ANNULE LE JUGEMENT RENDU LE 25 MARS 1982, ENTRE LES PARTIES, PAR LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE DE GUINGAMP ;

REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT JUGEMENT ET, POUR ETRE FAIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL D'INSTANCE DE SAINT-BRIEUC, A CE DESIGNE PAR DELIBERATION SPECIALE PRISE EN LA CHAMBRE DU CONSEIL ;