Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
82-11674 Généré par l'IA

Employer's Attempt to Convert Enforcement Opposition into Remission Request Rejected

Numéro de cause 82-11674
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

An employer was subject to a demand for payment of late payment surcharges for social security contributions and subsequently filed an opposition to the enforcement order, later transforming that opposition into a request for remission of the surcharges after a prior administrative request for remission was rejected. The lower instance commission declared the remission request admissible, finding the procedure regularized because the principal contributions had been paid and a prior administrative remission request had been made, but the high court quashed this decision, reasoning that a request for remission of penalties could only be brought through a formal appeal against the administrative decision rejecting the remission request, not by converting an opposition to an enforcement order, thereby violating the relevant procedural articles.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

ARTICLE L 167 DU CODE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE, ARTICLE 15 DU DECRET N° 58-1291 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1958, ARTICLE 20 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972, ARTICLE 14 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972; Employer's Attempt to Convert Enforcement Opposition into Remission Request Rejected: The lower instance commission declared the remission request admissible, finding the procedure regularized because the principal contributions had been paid and a prior administrative remission request had been made, but the high court quashed this decision, reasoning that a request for remission of penalties could only be brought through a formal appeal against the administrative decision rejecting the remission request, not by converting an opposition to an enforcement order, thereby violating the relevant procedural articles.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
décision d'exécution paiement de suppléments cotisation sociale décisions incidentes opposition tardive contentieux de sécurité sociale

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE L 167 DU CODE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE
This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.
ARTICLE 15 DU DECRET N° 58-1291 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1958
This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.
ARTICLE 20 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972
This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.
ARTICLE 14 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972
This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.
Généré par l'IA
85-18027
Social Security Penalty Remission During Writ Enforcement Opposition
89-21769
Employer Appeal on Denial of Social Security Surcharge Remission Dismissed
74-12079
Enforcement Opposition and Remission of Social Surcharges
JURITEXT000007074130
Employer's Appeal Regarding Full Remission of Late Payment Surcharges
87-10920
Company Appeal Regarding Late Payment Surcharge Remission Denied

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
ARTICLE L 167 DU CODE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE

This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.

ARTICLE 15 DU DECRET N° 58-1291 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1958

This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.

ARTICLE 20 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972

This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.

ARTICLE 14 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972

This article, along with others, was cited as violated by the lower commission's decision regarding the admissibility of the remission request via an opposition to a payment order.

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 MOYEN UNIQUE : VU LES ARTICLES 14 ET 20 DU DECRET N° 72-230 DU 24 MARS 1972, L'ARTICLE L 167 DU CODE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET L'ARTICLE 15 DU DECRET N° 58-1291 DU 22 DECEMBRE 1958;

ATTENDU QUE L'URSSAF A MIS LA SOCIETE HERZOG EN DEMEURE DE PAYER DES MAJORATIONS POUR VERSEMENT TARDIF DES COTISATIONS DU MOIS DE NOVEMBRE 1979 PUIS A DELIVRE UNE CONTRAINTE A LAQUELLE L'EMPLOYEUR A FAIT OPPOSITION LE 9 JUIN 1980;

QU'IL A SAISI ULTERIEUREMENT LA COMMISSION DE RECOURS GRACIEUX D'UNE DEMANDE DE REMISE QUI A ETE REJETE LE 24 MARS 1981;

QUE, A L'AUDIENCE DU 9 DECEMBRE 1981, LE DEBITEUR A TRANSFORME SON OPPOSITION A CONTRAINTE EN UNE DEMANDE DE REMISE DES MAJORATIONS;

ATTENDU QUE, POUR DECLARER RECEVABLE EN LA FORME LA DEMANDE DE LA SOCIETE ET ACCORDER LA REMISE DES MAJORATIONS REDUCTIBLES EN RAISON DE SA BONNE FOI, LA DECISION ATTAQUEE ENONCE QUE S'IL EST VRAI QUE LA DEMANDE DE REMISE GRACIEUSE DES PENALITES DE RETARD NE PEUT SE FAIRE PAR LE BIAIS DE L'OPPOSITION A CONTRAINTE;

TEL N'EST PAS LE CAS EN L'ESPECE, LE DEBITEUR AYANT REGLE L'INTEGRALITE DES COTISATIONS ET AYANT SOLLICITE AU PREALABLE LA REMISE GRACIEUSE DES PENALITES DE SORTE QUE LA PROCEDURE S'EST TROUVEE REGULARISEE. QU'EN STATUANT AINSI, ALORS QUE L'EMPLOYEUR NE POUVAIT SAISIR LA JURIDICTION CONTENTIEUSE D'UNE DEMANDE DE REMISE QUE PAR LA VOIE D'UN RECOURS REGULIEREMENT INTRODUIT CONTRE LA DECISION GRACIEUSE REJETANT SA REQUETE ET NON A L'OCCASION D'UNE OPPOSITION A CONTRAINTE QUI NE POUVAIT AVOIR CET OBJET, LA COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE A VIOLE LES TEXTES SUSVISES. PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE LA DECISION RENDUE ENTRE LES PARTIES LE 7 JANVIER 1982 PAR LA COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DE MULHOUSE:

REMET EN CONSEQUENCE LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES, AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LADITE DECISION ET, POUR ETRE FAIT DROIT, LES RENVOIE DEVANT LA COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DE COLMAR.