Breach of Trust Conviction Upheld Despite Procedural Omission Claim
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe Court of Cassation rejected an appeal against a ruling by the Court of Appeal of Paris which had convicted the appellant of breach of trust, sentencing him to six months imprisonment and civil damages. The sole ground for cassation alleged a violation of procedural law because the appellate ruling failed to explicitly state that the president had interrogated the accused, a formality claimed to be required under penalty of nullity. The Court reasoned that while the relevant procedural article requires the interrogation of the accused, this formality is not prescribed under penalty of nullity; furthermore, the challenged ruling established that the accused was heard on his means of defense after the reporting judge's statement, meaning he was given the opportunity to defend himself during the debate, thus precluding any ground for annulment based on the omission.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 442 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, ARTICLE 512 DU MEME CODE; Breach of Trust Conviction Upheld Despite Procedural Omission Claim: The sole ground for cassation alleged a violation of procedural law because the appellate ruling failed to explicitly state that the president had interrogated the accused, a formality claimed to be required under penalty of nullity. The Court reasoned that while the relevant procedural article requires the interrogation of the accused, this formality is not prescribed under penalty of nullity; furthermore, the challenged ruling established that the accused was heard on his means of defense after the reporting judge's statement, meaning he was given the opportunity to defend himself during the debate, thus precluding any ground for annulment based on the omission.
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 referenced this article while rejecting the ground for cassation, stating that its omission did not constitute a nullity under the circumstances.
This article was cited in the grounds for cassation, but the court implicitly rejected its application by rejecting the related procedural argument.
This article was cited to establish the applicability of Article 442 to the Court of Appeal proceedings.
Texte complet
REJET DU POURVOI FORME PAR X... (JEAN), CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS DU 12 MAI 1970, QUI, POUR ABUS DE CONFIANCE, L'A CONDAMNE A SIX MOIS D'EMPRISONNEMENT ET A DES REPARATIONS CIVILES LA COUR, VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT ;
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DE L'ARTICLE 442 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ET DE L'ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810 POUR DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, EN CE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE NE MENTIONNE PAS QUE LE PRESIDENT A PROCEDE A L'INTERROGATOIRE DU PREVENU ;
ALORS QUE CETTE FORMALITE EST PRESCRITE A PEINE DE NULLITE ;
ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE CONSTATE QU'APRES LE RAPPORT DE M LE CONSEILLER COURTOIS, LE PREVENU A ETE ENTENDU EN SES MOYENS DE DEFENSE ET ME MATIVET, AVOCAT DE X... EN SA PLAIDOIRIE ;
QU'AINSI IL N'Y A EU AUCUNE VIOLATION DE LA LOI ;
QU'EN EFFET SI L'ARTICLE 442 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, APPLICABLE DEVANT LA COUR D'APPEL EN VERTU DE L'ARTICLE 512 DU MEME CODE, PRESCRIT L'INTERROGATOIRE DU PREVENU, CETTE FORMALITE N'EST PAS EDICTEE A PEINE DE NULLITE ;
QUE L'OMISSION DE L'INTERROGATOIRE NE PEUT DEVENIR UNE CAUSE DE NULLITE QUE S'IL EST ETABLI QUE LE PREVENU N'A PAS ETE APPELE A SE DEFENDRE D'UNE MANIERE QUELCONQUE PENDANT LE DEBAT QUI A SUIVI LE RAPPORT ;
CE QUI N'EST PAS LE CAS EN L'ESPECE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN NE SAURAIT ETRE ACCUEILLI ;
ET ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET EST REGULIER EN LA FORME ;
REJETTE LE POURVOI