Cassation Rejection for Unstated Hearing of Prosecutor on Civil Matters
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal was lodged against a decision by the appellate court that held one party criminally liable for involuntary injury and the other civilly responsible for resulting damages, both being ordered to pay civil reparations. The sole ground for cassation alleged a formal defect because the appellate decision, while noting the presence of the Public Prosecutor, failed to explicitly state that the Prosecutor's submissions were heard, which the appellant argued rendered the judgment void, especially since only civil interests were at stake. The highest court rejected the appeal, reasoning that under the relevant procedural code, the mere omission to formally record that the Public Prosecutor was heard on submissions concerning only civil interests does not lead to cassation unless it is demonstrated or even alleged that this irregularity prejudiced the interests of the appealing party.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArt. 802 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 593 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 513 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 512 du Code de procédure pénale, Art. 460 du Code de procédure pénale; Cassation Rejection for Unstated Hearing of Prosecutor on Civil Matters: The sole ground for cassation alleged a formal defect because the appellate decision, while noting the presence of the Public Prosecutor, failed to explicitly state that the Prosecutor's submissions were heard, which the appellant argued rendered the judgment void, especially since only civil interests were at stake. The highest court rejected the appeal, reasoning that under the relevant procedural code, the mere omission to formally record that the Public Prosecutor was heard on submissions concerning only civil interests does not lead to cassation unless it is demonstrated or even alleged that this irregularity prejudiced the interests of the appealing party.
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'IAUsed to justify why the omission of the Public Prosecutor's request was not grounds for cassation because the dispute concerned only civil interests.
Cited in the grounds of appeal, but the Court ultimately found the decision regular in form, implicitly rejecting the basis for annulment.
Cited in the grounds of appeal, but the Court ultimately found the decision regular in form, implicitly rejecting the basis for annulment.
Cited in the grounds of appeal, but the Court ultimately found the decision regular in form, implicitly rejecting the basis for annulment.
Cited in the grounds of appeal, but the Court ultimately found the decision regular in form, implicitly rejecting the basis for annulment.
Texte complet
REJET DU POURVOI FORME PAR : X... (MARIUS), RECONNU COUPABLE DE BLESSURES INVOLONTAIRES, ET Y... (JEAN), CIVILEMENT RESPONSABLE,
CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER, CHAMBRE CORRECTIONNELLE, EN DATE DU 25 MAI 1976, QUI LES A CONDAMNES A DES REPARATIONS CIVILES.
LA COUR,
VU LES MEMOIRES PRODUITS EN DEMANDE ET EN DEFENSE ;
SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE DE CASSATION, PRIS DE LA VIOLATION DES ARTICLES 460, 512, 513 ET 593 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ENSEMBLE VIOLATION DE L'ARTICLE 7 DE LA LOI DU 20 AVRIL 1810, POUR VICE DE FORME, DEFAUT DE MOTIFS ET MANQUE DE BASE LEGALE, EN CE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE NE CONSTATE PAS QUE LE REPRESENTANT DU MINISTERE PUBLIC AIT PRIS SES REQUISITIONS A L'AUDIENCE ;
ALORS QUE LA PRESENCE A L'AUDIENCE D'UN REPRESENTANT DU MINISTERE PUBLIC NE SUFFIT PAS A LA REGULARITE DU DEBAT ET QUE L'AVOCAT GENERAL DOIT A PEINE DE NULLITE ETRE ENTENDU MEME DANS LE CAS OU LES INTERETS CIVILS SONT SEULS EN CAUSE ET QUE SON AUDITION DOIT ETRE EXPRESSEMENT CONSTATEE EGALEMENT A PEINE DE NULLITE DE L'ARRET ;
ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUI CONSTATE LA PRESENCE DU MINISTERE PUBLIC NE MENTIONNE PAS QUE SON REPRESENTANT AIT ETE ENTENDU EN SES REQUISITIONS ;
ATTENDU QUE, QUELQUE SUBSTANTIELLE QUE SOIT L'AUDITION DU MINISTERE PUBLIC, L'OMISSION DE SA CONSTATATION NE SAURAIT, SELON LA PRESCRIPTION DE L'ARTICLE 802 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ENTRAINER LA CASSATION DE L'ARRET DES LORS QUE, S'AGISSANT D'UN DEBAT PORTANT SUR LES INTERETS CIVILS, IL N'EST PAS DEMONTRE, NI MEME ALLEGUE, QUE CETTE IRREGULARITE AIT PORTE ATTEINTE AUX INTERETS DE LA PARTIE DEMANDERESSE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE MOYEN NE PEUT ETRE ACCUEILLI, ET ATTENDU QUE L'ARRET EST REGULIER EN LA FORME ;
REJETTE LE POURVOI.