Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
01-21123 Généré par l'IA

Social Security Debt Enforcement Upheld Against Non-Mainland Employee

Numéro de cause 01-21123
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction France (FR)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)
Frais judiciaires à la charge du recourant
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An individual appealed a judgment upholding an enforcement order for a social security debt, arguing the decision violated social security and constitutional provisions, as well as procedural rules. The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, affirming that the trial court had legally justified its decision by factually establishing that the appellant was employed by a company operating without an establishment in the French mainland, thereby validating the enforcement measure.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 455 du nouveau Code de procédure civile, L. 241-8 du Code de la sécurité sociale, L. 243-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale, 34 de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958; Social Security Debt Enforcement Upheld Against Non-Mainland Employee: The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, affirming that the trial court had legally justified its decision by factually establishing that the appellant was employed by a company operating without an establishment in the French mainland, thereby validating the enforcement measure.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
poursuite pour dettes sécurité sociale motifs de cassation procédure d'action en matière d'assurances sociales motifs valables frais de la procédure

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Art. 455 du nouveau Code de procédure civile
This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.
L. 241-8 du Code de la sécurité sociale
This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.
L. 243-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale
This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.
34 de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958
This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.
Généré par l'IA
14/02543
Social Security Debt Enforcement Order Confirmation Appeal
14/00171
Social Security Scheme v. Debtor: Penalty Enforcement Order Validation
21-15073
Social Security Enforcement Opposition Admissibility
09-16032
Social Security Contribution Enforcement Jurisdiction Dispute
21/012821
Social Security Contribution Enforcement Validity Appeal

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 455 du nouveau Code de procédure civile

This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.

L. 241-8 du Code de la sécurité sociale

This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.

L. 243-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale

This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.

34 de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958

This provision was cited in the grounds for the appeal, but since the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, the specific impact of this citation on the final order is not that of the main ground for the decision, which is implicitly based on the finding that the lower court legally justified its decision. However, as it was part of the grounds for the appeal which the court rejected by upholding the lower decision, and given the constraints, we must check if it appears in the dispositive. Since only 'REJETTE le pourvoi' and the costs are in the dispositive, only the cost provision applies.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS

LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE SOCIALE, a rendu l'arrêt suivant :

Sur le moyen unique :

Attendu que, pour des motifs qui sont pris de la violation des articles L. 241-8, L. 243-1 du Code de la sécurité sociale, 34 de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 et 455 du nouveau Code de procédure civile, il est fait grief au jugement attaqué (tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Versailles, 1er mars 2001) d'avoir validé la contrainte signifiée à l'encontre de M. X... le 5 juin 1998 à concurrence de la somme de 17 319 francs ;

Mais attendu que le tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale, ayant constaté que M. X... relevait d'un employeur dont l'entreprise ne comportait pas d'établissement dans la métropole, a légalement justifié sa décision ;

PAR CES MOTIFS :

REJETTE le pourvoi ;

Condamne M. X... aux dépens ;

Ainsi fait et jugé par la Cour de Cassation, Chambre sociale, et prononcé par le président en son audience publique du dix janvier deux mille six.