Introduction

Role of the parties

Role of judge

Contentious matters

Concept

Powers of the judge

Principle of adversarial proceedings

Non-contentious matters

Underlying principles of civil proceedings

Right to bring civil action

Abuse of the right to bring proceedings

Type of action

Concept of action

Interest in bringing proceedings

Standing

Rules governing action

Legal action

Initial claim

Counterclaim

Additional claim

Intervention

Incidental claim

Interruption of limitation period

Application to file suit (demande en justice)

Defense on the merits

Procedural objections (exceptions de procédure)

Procedural bars to admissibility (fins de non-recevoir)

Defenses

Nature of claim

Amount of the claim

Jurisdiction ratione materiae

Principles

Exceptional territorial jurisdiction

Extension of jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction

Competent court

Formal requirements

Substantive requirements

Presentation of the QPC (Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité)

Referral to Court of Cassation

Referral to Constitutional Council

Referral of the QPC

Investigation procedure

Conduct of hearing

Decision of the Constitutional Council

Proceedings before Constitutional Council

Priority question of constitutionality (QPC)

Simplified case preparation procedure

Participative procedure for case preparation purposes

Extra-judicial case preparation

Recourse to technical expert

Agreements on extra-judicial case preparation (mise en état)

Disclosure of exhibits

Production of documents

Exhibits

Common provisions for investigations

Rules specific to each investigation

Investigative measures

Disputes concerning private deeds (actes sous seing privé)

Forgery procedure against authentic instruments

Challenges to documentary evidence

Oath sworn as decisive evidence

Oath tendered by way of supplementation

Judicial oath

Administration of evidence

Hearings

Deliberations

Judgment

Formation

Judgment after adversarial proceedings

Judgment by default or judgment after trial

Contentious or non-contentious judgment

Judgment on the merits or provisional ruling (avant dire droit)

Combined judgment

Provisional judgment

Judgment in fast track proceedings

Types

Joinder and severance of proceedings

Interruption of proceedings

Suspension of proceedings

Discontinuance of proceedings (extinction)

Procedural incidents

Plea of lack of jurisdiction

Recusal/Dismissal for legitimate suspicion

Challenging the judge's competence

General rules

Voluntary intervention

Compulsory intervention

Joinder in proceedings (intervention)

Existence of a judgment

Same subject matter, cause, and parties

Authority of res judicata

General conditions of enforcement

Provisional enforcement

Grace period

Enforcement of the judgment

Bearing of costs

Order to pay non-recoverable costs

Verification/Recovery

Claims/Disputes

Costs and expenses

Ordinary remedies

Extraordinary remedies

Remedies

Judgments

Calculation of time-limits

Acts of judicial commissioners

Service of documents

Ordinary notification

Notification between lawyers

International notification

Place of notification

Notification

Communication by electronic means

Procedural acts

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

For practical reasons, the appellate jurisdiction threshold may limit the right to appeal (Art. 34 CPC). Indeed, the appeal proceedings may incur costs exceeding the stakes of the dispute. Also, in accordance with Article R. 211-3-24 of the Code of Judicial Organization, when the Judicial Court is called upon to hear, in civil matters, a personal or movable action involving a claim amounting to or …

Appellate jurisdiction threshold

For practical reasons, the appellate jurisdiction threshold may limit the right to appeal (Art. 34 CPC). Indeed, the appeal proceedings may incur costs exceeding the stakes of the dispute. Also, in accordance with Article R. 211-3-24 of the Code of Judicial Organization, when the Judicial Court is called upon to hear, in civil matters, a personal or movable action involving a claim amounting to or less than 5,000 EUR, the Judicial Court rules in the last instance. When calculating the appellate jurisdiction threshold, the court does not have to consider counterclaims that are not validly made . The situation differs depending on whether there is a single claimant or multiple claimants.

The solution poses no difficulties when the party makes a single claim. However, if the party submits multiple claims to the court, Article 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when several claims based on different and non-related facts are made by a claimant against the same opponent and combined in the same proceedings, the jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction threshold are determined by the nature and value of each claim considered separately. When the combined claims are based on the same facts or are related, the jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction threshold are determined by the total value of these claims.

When the claim is indeterminate, it is generally considered to exceed the appellate jurisdiction threshold and, in terms of jurisdiction, to exceed the jurisdictional threshold. In accordance with Article 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment ruling on an indeterminate claim is, unless otherwise provided, rendered at first instance and therefore subject to appeal .

Article 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when claims are made in the same proceedings and under a common title by several claimants or against several defendants, the jurisdiction and the appellate jurisdiction threshold are determined for all claims by the highest among them. Thus, all creditors, including those whose personal claim is below the appellate jurisdiction threshold, are admissible to appeal in the indivisible dispute concerning the validity or invalidity of the mortgage securing the payment of various loans, some of which exceed the appellate jurisdiction threshold . Conversely, if the claims do not rely on a common title, the general rule applies, and the outcome of each initial claim is assessed separately, so that an appeal may be available for one but not for the other.

Cass. 2e civ., 21 March 2019, LawLex202300004176JBJ.

Cass. com., 13 March 2024, LawLex202400005747JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 23 May 2024, LawLex202400005749JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 4 February 1971, LawLex202300000023JBJ.

When the appeal is limited for any reason, it may, under certain conditions, be reinstated. Some authors refer to this as a restored appeal. However, such restoration is only conceivable if no other remedy is available to the applicant at the time they intend to exercise their appeal. Indeed, if the law allows the dissatisfied applicant to file an appeal to the Court of Cassation, they cannot benefit from the restoration of their appeal. The Court of Cassation requires, to restore the right of appeal, that the applicant faces a situation of abuse of power . This is the case when the judge disregards the extent of their power to adjudicate  or when, in matters of realization of the debtor's assets in judicial liquidation, they rule without the debtor having been heard or duly summoned, in violation of the adversarial principle . Conversely, the disregard of the subject matter of the dispute and the violation of the law due to an error of law do not constitute cases of abuse of power .

Cass. mixte, 28 January 2005, LawLex202100001142JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 20 February 2007, LawLex202300003852JBJ.

Cass. com., 16 June 2009, LawLex202200005802JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 December 2007, LawLex202200006892JBJ.

Restoration of the right to appeal

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

264. Appellate jurisdiction threshold

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

264. Appellate jurisdiction threshold

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise