Appellant's Evasion of Warrant Bars Cassation Appeal Representation
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe High Court declared an appeal inadmissible because the appellant, having fled and failed to comply with a warrant issued by the lower court, was legally barred from being represented by an agent to file a cassation appeal against the decision that upheld the inadmissibility of his prior appeal concerning a default judgment. The Court reasoned that a convicted person who evades the execution of a judicial warrant forfeits the right to be represented or to mandate someone to appeal the conviction to the highest court, adhering to the general principles of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 411 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 412 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 410 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 406 ET SUIVANTS DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 2 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE; Appellant's Evasion of Warrant Bars Cassation Appeal Representation: The Court reasoned that a convicted person who evades the execution of a judicial warrant forfeits the right to be represented or to mandate someone to appeal the conviction to the highest court, adhering to the general principles of the Criminal Procedure Code.
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'IAAlthough cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 593 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 411 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 412 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 410 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing this range of articles in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 2 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 3 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing this article in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Although cited in the single ground of appeal, the final order only declares the appeal inadmissible based on a general principle derived from the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explicitly citing Article 494 in the operative part to justify the inadmissibility itself.
Texte complet
IRRECEVABILITE DU POURVOI FORME PAR X... (FRANCOIS), CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE METZ, CHAMBRE CORRECTIONNELLE, EN DATE DU 13 JUIN 1974, QUI A DECLARE NULLE L'OPPOSITION PAR LUI FORMEE A UN ARRET DE LA MEME COUR DU 3 JANVIER 1974. LA COUR, VU LES MEMOIRES PRODUITS EN DEMANDE ET EN DEFENSE;
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 406 ET SUIVANTS, 410, 411, 412, 494 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, DES ARTICLES 2, 3, 593 DU MEME CODE, DE L'ARTICLE 7, ALINEA 1ER DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS, MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, "EN CE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE A DEBOUTE UN PREVENU DE L'OPPOSITION FORMEE PAR LUI A UN ARRET DE DEFAUT QUI L'AVAIT DECLARE IRRECEVABLE EN SON APPEL;
"POUR LE MOTIF QUE L'INTERESSE ETAIT DEFAILLANT A L'AUDIENCE;
"ALORS QUE LE PREVENU ETAIT EN DROIT DE SE FAIRE REPRESENTER PAR UN MANDATAIRE, S'AGISSANT DE L'OPPOSITION FAITE A UN PRECEDENT ARRET QUI AVAIT ACCUEILLI UNE EXCEPTION DE PRESCRIPTION DE L'APPEL";
ATTENDU QU'IL APPERT DES CONSTATATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE X... (FRANCOIS), AU COURS DE LA PRESENTE PROCEDURE SUIVIE CONTRE LUI DU CHEF D'ABUS DE CONFIANCE ET D'USAGE DE MARQUE SANS AUTORISATION, S'EST DEROBE A L'EXECUTION D'UN MANDAT D'ARRET DECERNE PAR LE TRIBUNAL;
QUE LE DEMANDEUR ETAIT EN FUITE LORSQUE LE POURVOI CONTRE L'ARRET A ETE FORME EN SON NOM PAR UN MANDATAIRE;
ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DES PRINCIPES GENERAUX DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE QUE LE CONDAMNE QUI N'A PAS OBEI A UN MANDAT DE JUSTICE DECERNE CONTRE LUI ET QUI S'EST DEROBE A SON EXECUTION, N'EST PAS EN DROIT DE SE FAIRE REPRESENTER ET DE DONNER MANDAT POUR SE POURVOIR EN CASSATION CONTRE LA DECISION LE CONDAMNANT;
DECLARE X... (FRANCOIS) NON RECEVABLE EN SON POURVOI