Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Lack of Valid Representation in Expropriation Case
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAA party sought to appeal an expropriation order issued by a specific local judge by filing a declaration of appeal through an attorney who claimed substitution for other attorneys who had received the initial power of attorney from the appellant; however, because the filing attorney failed to prove they had personally received the authority to appeal on the party's behalf or had been validly substituted for the original mandate holders, the court declared the appeal inadmissible, as the declaration did not meet the procedural requirements stipulated by the relevant article of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 984 DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Lack of Valid Representation in Expropriation Case: A party sought to appeal an expropriation order issued by a specific local judge by filing a declaration of appeal through an attorney who claimed substitution for other attorneys who had received the initial power of attorney from the appellant; however, because the filing attorney failed to prove they had personally received the authority to appeal on the party's behalf or had been validly substituted for the original mandate holders, the court declared the appeal inadmissible, as the declaration did not meet the procedural requirements stipulated by the relevant article of the New Code of Civil Procedure.
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 was cited as the basis for declaring the appeal inadmissible due to non-compliance with procedural requirements regarding representation.
Texte complet
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI RELEVEE D'OFFICE : VU L'ARTICLE 984 DU NOUVEAU CODE DE PROCEDURE CIVILE ;
ATTENDU QUE LE 3 NOVEMBRE 1981 AU GREFFE DU TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE COLMAR, MAITRE Y..., AVOCAT AU BARREAU DE COLMAR, DECLARANT SUBSTITUER MAITRE A... ET VONARB AVOCATS AU BARREAU DE MULHOUSE S'EST POURVU EN CASSATION AU NOM DE MME VEUVE ROBERT Z..., NEE B... C... CONTRE UNE ORDONNANCE D'EXPROPRIATION RENDUE LE 7 SEPTEMBRE 1981 PAR LE JUGE DE L'EXPROPRIATION DU DEPARTEMENT DU HAUT-RHIN ;
QUE MAITRE X... S'EST PREVALU D'UN POUVOIR DONNE LE 2 NOVEMBRE 1981 A MAITRES A... ET VONARB AVOCATS AU BARREAU DE MULHOUSE PAR MME VEUVE ROBERT Z... ;
ATTENDU QUE FAUTE PAR MAITRE Y... DE JUSTIFIER QU'IL AVAIT PERSONNELLEMENT RECU POUVOIR DE FORMER UN POURVOI AU NOM DE MME VEUVE ROBERT Z... NEE B... C... OU QU'IL AVAIT ETE REGULIEREMENT SUBSTITUE A MAITRE A... ET VONARB, LA DECLARATION DE POURVOI N'EST PAS CONFORME AUX EXIGENCES DU TEXTE SUSVISE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE POURVOI EST IRRECEVABLE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE IRRECEVABLE LE POURVOI FORME CONTRE L'ORDONNANCE RENDUE LE 7 SEPTEMBRE 1981 PAR LE JUGE DE L'EXPROPRIATION DU DEPARTEMENT DU HAUT-RHIN SIEGEANT A COLMAR ;