Inadmissibility of Appeal for Untimely Filing in Civil Reparations Case
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe appeal filed by a convicted person regarding the civil reparations ordered by a criminal judgment for involuntary injury, and by the person civilly liable, was declared inadmissible because the appeal deadline was not observed. The appellant, who had requested to be judged contradictorily in her absence after her defense counsel was heard pursuant to provisions allowing for such procedure, was required to observe the standard five-day appeal period commencing from the date the decision was rendered, as the exception extending the period from the notification date only applies when a judgment is rendered in the specific conditions outlined for absence, not when the defense counsel is heard; similarly, the appeal by the civilly liable party, who was represented by counsel, was also untimely, as no exception exists when a decision is rendered contradictorily concerning them.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 568, ALINEA 1ER, DU MEME CODE, ARTICLE 411 ET 414 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 411, ALINEA 1ER, ARTICLES 415 ET 512 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, ARTICLE 462 DU MEME CODE; Inadmissibility of Appeal for Untimely Filing in Civil Reparations Case: The appellant, who had requested to be judged contradictorily in her absence after her defense counsel was heard pursuant to provisions allowing for such procedure, was required to observe the standard five-day appeal period commencing from the date the decision was rendered, as the exception extending the period from the notification date only applies when a judgment is rendered in the specific conditions outlined for absence, not when the defense counsel is heard; similarly, the appeal by the civilly liable party, who was represented by counsel, was also untimely, as no exception exists when a decision is rendered contradictorily concerning them.
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 article sets the deadline for appeal which the appellant failed to observe.
These articles describe the procedure under which the appellant requested to be judged contradictorily in her absence, which impacts the starting date of the appeal period.
This article defines the specific procedural condition under which the second paragraph of Article 568 applies (or in this case, does not apply).
These articles concern the contradictory judgment against the civilly liable party, for whom the appeal was also declared inadmissible based on the general rule.
This article regarding the warning given by the President concerning the delayed pronouncement of the decision was cited to dismiss the appellants' argument against the tardiness.
Texte complet
IRRECEVABILITE DU POURVOI FORME PAR : 1° X... (MARIE-THERESE), EPOUSE Y...;
2° X... (LEON), CIVILEMENT RESPONSABLE, CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE MONTPELLIER, CHAMBRE CORRECTIONNELLE, DU 22 JANVIER 1974, QUI LES A CONDAMNES A REPARER LES CONSEQUENCES DOMMAGEABLES D'UN DELIT DE BLESSURES INVOLONTAIRES DONT LA DAME X... Y... A ETE DEFINITIVEMENT DECLAREE COUPABLE. LA COUR, VU LES MEMOIRES PRODUITS EN DEMANDE ET EN DEFENSE;
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI : ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE LA DAME X..., APPELANTE DES DISPOSITIONS CIVILES D'UN JUGEMENT QUI L'A CONDAMNEE DU CHEF DE BLESSURES INVOLONTAIRES, A, PAR LETTRE ADRESSEE AU PRESIDENT ET JOINTE A LA PROCEDURE, DEMANDE A ETRE JUGEE CONTRADICTOIREMENT EN SON ABSENCE, APRES AUDITION DE SON DEFENSEUR, CONFORMEMENT AUX DISPOSITIONS DES ARTICLES 411 ET 414 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE;
QU'IL A ETE AINSI PROCEDE, L'AVOCAT DE DAME X... AYANT ETE ENTENDU;
ATTENDU QU'EN CET ETAT, LA DAME X... ETAIT TENUE D'OBSERVER LE DELAI DE POURVOI PRESCRIT PAR L'ARTICLE 568, ALINEA 1ER, DU MEME CODE A PARTIR DU PRONONCE DE LA DECISION ATTAQUEE, LES DISPOSITIONS DE L'ALINEA 2-2° DE CE DERNIER ARTICLE, QUI NE FONT COURIR LE DELAI QU'A COMPTER DE LA SIGNIFICATION DE L'ARRET, NE S'APPLIQUANT QU'AUX DECISIONS RENDUES "DANS LES CONDITIONS PREVUES A L'ARTICLE 411, ALINEA 1ER", ET NON AU CAS, PREVU PAR L'ALINEA 2 DU MEME ARTICLE, OU LE DEFENSEUR EST ENTENDU;
QU'IL S'ENSUIT QUE LE POURVOI DE DAME X..., FORME LE 29 JANVIER 1974, SOIT PLUS DE CINQ JOURS FRANCS APRES LE PRONONCE DE L'ARRET, RENDU LE 22 JANVIER, EST TARDIF ET DOIT ETRE DECLARE IRRECEVABLE;
ATTENDU QU'IL EN EST DE MEME DU POURVOI FORME, DANS LE MEME ACTE, AU NOM DU SIEUR X..., CIVILEMENT RESPONSABLE, DES LORS QUE CE DEMANDEUR ETAIT, AUX TERMES DE L'ARRET, REPRESENTE PAR UN AVOCAT ET QUE LA DECISION A ETE RENDUE CONTRADICTOIREMENT A SON EGARD, EN APPLICATION DES ARTICLES 415 ET 512 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, AUCUNE EXCEPTION A LA REGLE GENERALE N'ETANT PREVUE EN PAREIL CAS;
ATTENDU, ENFIN, QUE LES DEMANDEURS NE SAURAIENT SE PREVALOIR AU REGARD DE L'ARTICLE 568 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE, DE CE QUE, LES DEBATS AYANT EU LIEU LE 8 JANVIER, LE PRONONCE DE L'ARRET A ETE REMIS AU 22 JANVIER, MENTION Y ETANT FAITE DE L'AVERTISSEMENT QUE LE PRESIDENT EN A DONNE CONFORMEMENT AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DE L'ARTICLE 462 DU MEME CODE;
PAR CES MOTIFS : DECLARE LE POURVOI IRRECEVABLE