Opposition to Jurisdiction Designation Decision Inadmissible
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn individual sought to oppose a decision by the criminal chamber of the highest court that had designated an examining magistrate in another jurisdiction to investigate charges including the creation of false affidavits, complicity, and witness tampering, citing a potential procedural issue related to the designation article. The court declared the opposition inadmissible, reasoning that the specific procedural rules allowing opposition to a decision of the criminal chamber are strictly limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure to cases concerning the appellant's failure to notify the adverse party of the appeal or the failure to exchange briefs, and this restrictive scope does not extend to decisions made under the articles concerning the designation of a jurisdiction.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArticle 579 du Code de procédure pénale, Article 589 du Code de procédure pénale, Article 679 du Code de procédure pénale, Article 687 du Code de procédure pénale; Opposition to Jurisdiction Designation Decision Inadmissible: The court declared the opposition inadmissible, reasoning that the specific procedural rules allowing opposition to a decision of the criminal chamber are strictly limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure to cases concerning the appellant's failure to notify the adverse party of the appeal or the failure to exchange briefs, and this restrictive scope does not extend to decisions made under the articles concerning the designation of a jurisdiction.
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 opposition was declared inadmissible because the grounds for opposition described in this article (omission to notify the appeal) were not met for the decision made.
The opposition was declared inadmissible as the grounds related to the communication of briefs, which was not the case here.
This article's provisions, concerning the designation of a jurisdiction, are cited as being outside the scope of the opposition procedure.
This article's provisions, concerning the designation of a jurisdiction, are cited as being outside the scope of the opposition procedure.
Texte complet
LA COUR, VU LA REQUETE SIGNEE PAR LE DEMANDEUR A L'OPPOSITION ;
VU LE MEMOIRE DEPOSE PAR ME HENNUYER ;
ATTENDU QUE LOUIS X... A FORME OPPOSITION A UN ARRET RENDU LE 5 AOUT 1978 PAR LA CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE DE LA COUR DE CASSATION QUI A DESIGNE, POUR INSTRUIRE CONTRE LUI DU CHEF D'ETABLISSEMENT DE FAUSSES ATTESTATIONS, COMPLICITE, SUBORNATION DE TEMOINS, LE JUGE D'INSTRUCTION AU TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE CHALON-SUR-SAONE AU VU D'UNE REQUETE FAISANT ETAT D'UNE DEMARCHE DU CONSEIL DE L'INCULPE AUPRES DU MAGISTRAT INSTRUCTEUR POUR ATTIRER SON ATTENTION SUR L'EVENTUELLE APPLICATION DE L'ARTICLE 687 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ;
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DE L'OPPOSITION;
ATTENDU QUE LE CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE PREVOIT L'OPPOSITION A UN ARRET RENDU PAR LA CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE SEULEMENT DANS LES CAS VISES D'UNE PART PAR L'ARTICLE 579 CONCERNANT LE DEMANDEUR EN CASSATION, QUI A OMIS DE NOTIFIER SON POURVOI A LA PARTIE ADVERSE COMME L'Y OBLIGE L'ARTICLE 578, ET, D'AUTRE PART, PAR L'ARTICLE 589 EN L'ABSENCE DE COMMUNICATION DES MEMOIRES A LA PARTIE ADVERSE ; QU'AINSI, CETTE PROCEDURE DEROGATOIRE AU DROIT COMMUN NE S'ETEND PAS AUX ARRETS DESIGNANT UNE JURIDICTION EN APPLICATION DES PRESCRIPTIONS DES ARTICLES 679 ET 687 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS :
DECLARE L'OPPOSITION IRRECEVABLE.