Establishment Operation Fine Appeal Regarding Procedural Irregularity Presumption of Regularity
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal sought to overturn a conviction and fine imposed for an infraction of the law concerning an establishment's operation, based on the argument that the appellate court's decision violated procedural rules because the record failed to explicitly state the reporting counselor who presented the report was present during the deliberation and rendering of the judgment, despite the names differing slightly between the report and the decision; however, the court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that in the absence of a specific objection from the accused or counsel, a slight variation in the magistrate's name between the report notation and the final judgment entry was presumed to be a material error, thereby upholding the presumption that the reporting counselor participated in the deliberation and affirming the formal regularity of the judgment.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArticle 34 de l'ordonnance du 23 décembre 1958; Establishment Operation Fine Appeal Regarding Procedural Irregularity Presumption of Regularity: The appeal sought to overturn a conviction and fine imposed for an infraction of the law concerning an establishment's operation, based on the argument that the appellate court's decision violated procedural rules because the record failed to explicitly state the reporting counselor who presented the report was present during the deliberation and rendering of the judgment, despite the names differing slightly between the report and the decision; however, the court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that in the absence of a specific objection from the accused or counsel, a slight variation in the magistrate's name between the report notation and the final judgment entry was presumed to be a material error, thereby upholding the presumption that the reporting counselor participated in the deliberation and affirming the formal regularity of the judgment.
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 provision was the basis for the conviction upheld by the appellate court's decision, although the actual annulment/rejection reasons were procedural.
Texte complet
REJET DU POURVOI DE MIHOUBI (MOHAMED), CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE PARIS, EN DATE DU 8 AVRIL 1967, QUI POUR INFRACTION A L'ARTICLE 34 DE L'ORDONNANCE DU 23 DECEMBRE 1958 L'A CONDAMNE A 500 FRANCS D'AMENDE, ET ORDONNE LA FERMETURE DEFINITIVE DE L'ETABLISSEMENT LA COUR, VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT;
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 513 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ET 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, "EN CE QUE LA COUR A STATUE APRES LE RAPPORT D'UN CONSEILLER;
"ALORS QU'IL NE RESULTE PAS DES ENONCIATIONS DE LA DECISION ATTAQUEE QUE CE CONSEILLER ETAIT PRESENT LORS DU PRONONCE DE L'ARRET;
"QUE LA CASSATION EST ENCOURUE DE CE CHEF";
ATTENDU QUE DANS SON PREAMBULE L'ARRET ATTAQUE ENONCE QU'A L'AUDIENCE DU 8 AVRIL 1967 OU L'AFFAIRE A ETE DEBATTUE, M LE CONSEILLER PRUNET A ETE ENTENDU EN SON RAPPORT;
QUE DANS SA PARTIE FINALE IL ENONCE QUE LA DECISION A ETE RENDUE LE MEME JOUR EN PRESENCE DE M Y..., FAISANT FONCTIONS DE PRESIDENT ET DE MM X... ET "PRUNIER", CONSEILLERS;
ATTENDU QU'A DEFAUT DE RECLAMATION DU PREVENU OU DE SON DEFENSEUR, IL EST A PRESUMER QU'IL S'AGISSAIT DU MEME MAGISTRAT DONT, PAR SUITE D'UNE ERREUR MATERIELLE, LE NOM A ETE DIFFEREMMENT ORTHOGRAPHIE ET QUE LE CONSEILLER RAPPORTEUR A BIEN PARTICIPE A LA DELIBERATION;
QU'IL S'ENSUIT QUE LE MOYEN NE SAURAIT ETRE ACCUEILLI;
ET ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET EST REGULIER EN LA FORME;
REJETTE LE POURVOI PRESIDENT : M COMTE - RAPPORTEUR : M GRENIER - AVOCAT GENERAL : M RELIQUET - AVOCAT : M MARTIN-MARTINIERE