Withdrawal of Appeal vs. Cross-Appeal Timing
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn appeal was lodged against a divorce judgment, and the principal appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal, but at the same time, the adverse party filed a cross-appeal concerning property measures. The appellate court dismissed the principal appellant's contention that the instance was extinguished by the withdrawal, ruling that the cross-appeal should be declared admissible based on established jurisprudence concerning concurrent filing. The highest court quashed this decision, reasoning that under the relevant civil procedure articles, an unconditional withdrawal of an appeal extinguishes the instance unless the adverse party had *previously* filed a cross-appeal or incidental claim, and since it was not established that the cross-appeal preceded the withdrawal, the appellate court violated the cited articles.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLES 385 ET 401 DU NOUVEAU CODE PROCEDURE CIVILE; Withdrawal of Appeal vs. Cross-Appeal Timing: The appellate court dismissed the principal appellant's contention that the instance was extinguished by the withdrawal, ruling that the cross-appeal should be declared admissible based on established jurisprudence concerning concurrent filing. The highest court quashed this decision, reasoning that under the relevant civil procedure articles, an unconditional withdrawal of an appeal extinguishes the instance unless the adverse party had *previously* filed a cross-appeal or incidental claim, and since it was not established that the cross-appeal preceded the withdrawal, the appellate court violated the cited articles.
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'IAThe Court of Cassation overruled the lower court for violating these articles by failing to recognize the extinction of the appeal following the waiver, despite the simultaneous filing of a cross-appeal.
Texte complet
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE : VU LES ARTICLES 385 ET 401 DU NOUVEAU CODE PROCEDURE CIVILE, ATTENDU QU'EN APPLICATION DE CES TEXTES, LE DESISTEMENT SANS RESERVE D'UN APPEL ETEINT L'INSTANCE SANS ACCEPTATION DE LA PARTIE ADVERSE, SAUF SI CELLE-CI AVAIT PREALABLEMENT FORME UN APPEL INCIDENT OU UNE DEMANDE INCIDENTE ;
ATTENDU, SELON L'ARRET ATTAQUE, QUE M. JACQUES X... AYANT RELEVE APPEL PRINCIPAL D'UN JUGEMENT QUI AVAIT PRONONCE LE DIVORCE A SES TORTS, S'EST DESISTE DE CET APPEL ;
QUE MME X... A FORME UN APPEL INCIDENT DU CHEF DES MESURES D'ORDRE PATRIMONIAL ;
QUE LE DESISTEMENT ET L'APPEL INCIDENT ONT ETE RESPECTIVEMENT FORMES A LA MEME DATE ;
ATTENDU QUE POUR REJETER LES CONCLUSIONS DE M. X... TENDANT A FAIRE CONSTATER L'EXTINCTION DE L'INSTANCE, L'ARRET, APRES AVOIR RELEVE LA CONCOMITANCE DU DESISTEMENT ET DE L'APPEL INCIDENT, ENONCE QUE, CONFORMEMENT A UNE JURISPRUDENCE ETABLIE BIEN QU'ANCIENNE, IL CONVENAIT, EN PAREIL CAS, DE DECLARER L'APPEL INCIDENT RECEVABLE ;
QU'EN STATUANT AINSI, ALORS QU'IL N'ETAIT PAS ETABLI QUE L'APPEL INCIDENT EUT ETE FORME PREALABLEMENT AU DESISTEMENT, LA COUR D'APPEL A VIOLE LES TEXTES SUSVISES ;
PAR CES MOTIFS : CASSE ET ANNULE L'ARRET RENDU LE 22 SEPTEMBRE 1982, ENTRE LES PARTIES, PAR LA COUR D'APPEL D'AIX-EN-PROVENCE ;
REMET, EN CONSEQUENCE, LA CAUSE ET LES PARTIES AU MEME ET SEMBLABLE ETAT OU ELLES ETAIENT AVANT LEDIT ARRET ;