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

If Article 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure identifies two categories of remedies, ordinary and extraordinary, these categories follow common rules regarding the holders of the action and the time limits.
The particularity of remedies lies in the fact that the claim has already been adjudicated. Thus, by virtue of the principle of the relativity of res judicata, the only persons who may challeng …

Holders of right to appeal and time-limits

If Article 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure identifies two categories of remedies, ordinary and extraordinary, these categories follow common rules regarding the holders of the action and the time limits.

The particularity of remedies lies in the fact that the claim has already been adjudicated. Thus, by virtue of the principle of the relativity of res judicata, the only persons who may challenge the judgment are, in principle, those who were parties or represented in the proceedings. However, this principle has several exceptions. The first arises from the provisions of Article 534 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a person who legally represented a party may, in the event of the cessation of their functions and if there is a personal interest, exercise the remedy in their own name. The remedy is similarly available against them. The second is found in Article 583, which allows third-party opposition to any person who has an interest, provided that they were neither a party nor represented in the judgment they are challenging.

Time-limits for appeals are procedural time-limits, which follow the rules applicable to them, subject to the common provisions on remedies. Article 528, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure sets the starting point of the time-limit after which an appeal can no longer be exercised at the notification of the judgment, since it is only from this moment that a party can knowingly decide whether it is advisable to appeal. Thus, the time-limit for appeal for the recipient of the notification letter of the judgment runs from the date on which this letter is delivered to them. The time-limit also runs against the notifier (Art. 528, para. 2, CPC). A regular notification, which contains no information likely to mislead, triggers the time-limit for appeal. Similarly, if a judgment is notified twice, the first regular notification triggers the time-limits for appeal. However, a notification made after an initial irregular notification does not trigger the time-limit for appeal if it does not specify that it replaces the first. In the case of notifications made on different dates by the winning parties, the notification benefits the one who made it and triggers the time-limit against the one who received it, except in cases of joint and several liability or indivisibility.

In fine, Article 528, para. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, however, that the time limit for appeal may begin to run, by law, from the date of the judgment . This is the case, for example, in insolvency proceedings, where the time limit within which the debtor may appeal the judgment approving or rejecting the company's disposal plan is ten days from the pronouncement of the judgment . Case law has established another exception, holding that the time limit for appeal available to the applicant when the application is not granted starts from the day of the pronouncement of the order or from the date on which the applicant became aware of it, regardless of whether notification of the decision was ordered .

Article 529 provides that in the event of joint or indivisible liability of several parties, notification made to one of them only starts the time limit with respect to that party, and in cases where a judgment benefits several parties jointly or indivisibly, each may rely on the notification made by one of them. In other words, for each to rely on the notification made by one of them, there must be no impossibility of separately enforcing the provisions of the judgment concerning each of the parties. The Court of Cassation has thus held that if a judgment rejecting a joint payment claim against several defendants does not create solidarity between them within the meaning of Article 529 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the existence in a pre-existing act enforceable against the appellant of solidarity between the parties allows each party to rely on the notification made by one of them .

In the specific case where one of the parties is a protected adult, Article 530 of the Code of Civil Procedure sets the time limit running when a person is under guardianship from the day the judgment is notified both to their legal representative and to the substitute guardian, if applicable, even if the latter has not been involved (para. 1) , and when the adult is under curatorship from the day of notification made to the curator (para. 2).

Several events can interrupt the time limit for appeal:

- a change in the capacity of a party to whom the judgment had been notified or the effect of the judgment pronouncing safeguard, judicial recovery, or judicial liquidation in cases where it entails assistance or divestment of the debtor (Art. 531, para. 1, CPC); in such a case, the time limit only resumes by virtue of a new notification made to the person now authorized to receive it;

- the death of the party to whom the judgment had been notified (Art. 532, para. 2, CPC); here, the time limit will resume by virtue of a notification made at the deceased's domicile, which can be made to the heirs and representatives, collectively and without designation of names and capacities.

To ensure legal certainty throughout the proceedings, the party to whom an appeal is notified is deemed, for this notification, to reside at the address they provided in the notification of the judgment (Art. 535 CPC). However, if the party who notified the judgment has died, the appeal may be notified at the deceased's domicile, to their heirs and representatives, collectively and without specifying names and capacities (Art. 533, para. 1, CPC).

The incorrect classification of a judgment by the courts that rendered it has no effect on the right to exercise a remedy (Art. 536, para. 1, CPC) . It follows that the time limit for appeal does not begin to run unless the act of notification of this judgment indicated the remedy that was actually available .

Article 528-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by Decree No 89-511 of 20 July 1989 , whose provisions are mandatory public policy provisions , provides that if the judgment has not been served within two years of its pronouncement, the party who appeared is no longer admissible to exercise a principal appeal after the expiration of this period. Thus, a party who appeared at first instance is no longer admissible to exercise a principal appeal more than two years after the judgment referred to the Court of Appeal . Indeed, Article 528-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not determine the starting point of the appeal period, but the term beyond which no appeal can be exercised by the party who appeared, the date on which this party had actual knowledge of the decision being irrelevant .

The provisions of Article 528-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply only to judgments that decide the entire principal and to those that, ruling on a procedural objection, a bar to proceedings, or any other incident, terminate the proceedings. They are inapplicable when a party files an appeal, even if inadmissible, within two years of the decision being rendered .

Cass. 2e civ., 18 September 2008, LawLex202300014437JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 11 March 1998, LawLex202300014424JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 March 2004, LawLex202300014423JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 22 February 2007, LawLex202400008876JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 May 1998, LawLex202300014422JBJ.

Cass. soc., 31 October 1991, LawLex202300012149JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 January 2008, LawLex202300014434JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 3 June 1999, LawLex202300014421JBJ; 3 March 2022, LawLex202200006887JBJ.

Decree No 89-511 of 20 July 1989 amending certain provisions of civil procedure, OJ of 25 July 1989.

Cass. 2e civ., 14 October 1999, LawLex202300014425JBJ.

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

259. Holders of right to appeal and time-limits

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

259. Holders of right to appeal and time-limits

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