Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Late Filing After Service of Judgment
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn individual appealed a decision by the correctional court that declared their opposition to a prior conviction for family abandonment voided due to repeated default, and the appellate court subsequently declared that appeal inadmissible; the Supreme Court held the appeal to the Supreme Court inadmissible because it was filed on April 27, 1982, after the expiration of the deadline stipulated by the relevant procedural code, as the challenged appellate judgment, delivered contradictorily and served via bailiff delivery to the appellant's sister-in-law's residence on March 29, 1982, was followed by the required notification letter sent the next day, initiating the time limit for appeal.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAARTICLE 568 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE; Appeal Inadmissibility Due to Late Filing After Service of Judgment: An individual appealed a decision by the correctional court that declared their opposition to a prior conviction for family abandonment voided due to repeated default, and the appellate court subsequently declared that appeal inadmissible; the Supreme Court held the appeal to the Supreme Court inadmissible because it was filed on April 27, 1982, after the expiration of the deadline stipulated by the relevant procedural code, as the challenged appellate judgment, delivered contradictorily and served via bailiff delivery to the appellant's sister-in-law's residence on March 29, 1982, was followed by the required notification letter sent the next day, initiating the time limit for appeal.
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 appeal was declared inadmissible because it was filed after the deadline stipulated by this article.
Texte complet
STATUANT SUR LE POURVOI FORME PAR : - COLAS SAVINIEN - CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE BASSE-TERRE, CHAMBRE CORRECTIONNELLE, EN DATE DU 9 FEVRIER 1982, QUI A DECLARE IRRECEVABLE L'APPEL FORME PAR LUI CONTRE UN JUGEMENT DU TRIBUNAL CORRECTIONNEL DE BASSE-TERRE DU 5 DECEMBRE 1980, AYANT PAR ITERATIF DEFAUT DECLARE NON AVENUE SON OPPOSITION A UN PRECEDENT JUGEMENT DU 25 JUILLET 1980 L'AYANT CONDAMNE A 1 MOIS D'EMPRISONNEMENT POUR ABANDON DE FAMILLE ;
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI ;
ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DES PIECES DE LA PROCEDURE QUE L'ARRET ATTAQUE RENDU CONTRADICTOIREMENT EN APPLICATION DES DISPOSITIONS DE L'ARTICLE 410 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE A ETE SIGNIFIE AU DOMICILE DE COLAS LE 29 MARS 1982, L'HUISSIER AYANT DELIVRE UNE COPIE DE L'EXPLOIT A LA BELLE-SOEUR DU DESTINATAIRE ;
QUE LA LETTRE RECOMMANDEE AVEC ACCUSE DE RECEPTION EXIGEE PAR L'ARTICLE 557 DU MEME CODE A ETE EXPEDIEE A CE DERNIER LE LENDEMAIN 30 MARS 1982 ;
ATTENDU QUE COLAS N'A DECLARE SE POURVOIR CONTRE CET ARRET QUE LE 27 AVRIL 1982, SOIT APRES L'EXPIRATION DU DELAI PREVU R L'ARTICLE 568 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ;
D'OU IL SUIT QUE LE POURVOI DOIT ETRE DECLARE IRRECEVABLE ;
PAR CES MOTIFS, DECLARE LE POURVOI IRRECEVABLE