Appeal Timeliness in Criminal Proceedings Following Contradictory Judgment in Absentia
France (FR)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAAn individual appealed a decision from the Court of Appeal of Douai, which, despite amnestying the minor violence charge against them, ordered them to pay civil damages and dismissed another party's civil suit against the appellant. The court declared the appeal inadmissible because it was filed late, reasoning that since the appellant had requested to be judged contradictorily in their absence after their defense counsel was heard, pursuant to Article 411, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal period under Article 568, paragraph 1, began from the date the judgment was rendered, not from its notification as provided for in other circumstances. Consequently, the appeal filed on September 13, 1982, more than five clear days after the May 27, 1982, judgment, was deemed tardy.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArticle 568 alinéa 1 du même code; Appeal Timeliness in Criminal Proceedings Following Contradictory Judgment in Absentia: The court declared the appeal inadmissible because it was filed late, reasoning that since the appellant had requested to be judged contradictorily in their absence after their defense counsel was heard, pursuant to Article 411, paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal period under Article 568, paragraph 1, began from the date the judgment was rendered, not from its notification as provided for in other circumstances. Consequently, the appeal filed on September 13, 1982, more than five clear days after the May 27, 1982, judgment, was deemed tardy.
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 prescribed by this article.
Texte complet
STATUANT SUR LE POURVOI FORME PAR : - MOHAMMED X..., CONTRE UN ARRET DE LA COUR D'APPEL DE DOUAI, EN DATE DU 27 MAI 1982, QUI A DECLARE AMNISTIEE LA CONTRAVENTION DE VIOLENCES LEGERES QUI LUI ETAIT REPROCHEE, L'A CONDAMNE A DES REPARATIONS CIVILES, ET QUI, AYANT RELAXE GODET DU CHEF DE VIOLENCES LEGERES CONTRE CE DERNIER, A DECLARE IRRECEVABLE SA CONSTITUTION DE PARTIE CIVILE ;
VU LE MEMOIRE PRODUIT ;
SUR LA RECEVABILITE DU POURVOI ;
ATTENDU QU'IL RESULTE DES ENONCIATIONS DE L'ARRET ATTAQUE QUE MOHAMMED X... A, PAR LETTRE ADRESSEE AU PRESIDENT ET JOINTE A LA PROCEDURE, DEMANDE A ETRE JUGE CONTRADICTOIREMENT EN SON ABSENCE, APRES AUDITION DE SON DEFENSEUR, CONFORMEMENT AUX DISPOSITIONS DE L'ARTICLE 411 DU CODE DE PROCEDURE PENALE ;
QU'IL A ETE AINSI PROCEDE, L'AVOCAT DE MOHAMMED AYANT ETE ENTENDU ;
ATTENDU QU'EN CET ETAT, LE PREVENU ETAIT TENU D'OBSERVER LE DELAI DE POURVOI, PRESCRIT PAR L'ARTICLE 568 ALINEA 1 DU MEME CODE, A PARTIR DU PRONONCE DE LA DECISION ATTAQUEE, LES DISPOSITIONS DE L'ALINEA 2-2EME 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 1 ET NON PAS AU CAS PREVU PAR L'ALINEA 2 DU MEME ARTICLE, OU LE DEFENSEUR EST ENTENDU ;
QU'IL S'ENSUIT QUE LE POURVOI DE MOHAMMED, FORME LE 13 SEPTEMBRE 1982, SOIT PLUS DE CINQ JOURS FRANCS APRES LE PRONONCE DE L'ARRET RENDU LE 27 MAI 1982 EST TARDIF ET DOIT ETRE DECLARE IRRECEVABLE ;
DECLARE LE POURVOI IRRECEVABLE ;