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

The court sovereignly determines the scope of the technician's mission . The court does not depart from its role by assigning the expert the task of monitoring the execution of works and the results, as this mission is purely technical . This technician can only be appointed to answer a question of fact (Art. 232 CPC). Appointed to examine the equipment provided by a company, the technician cannot …

Extent

The court sovereignly determines the scope of the technician's mission . The court does not depart from its role by assigning the expert the task of monitoring the execution of works and the results, as this mission is purely technical . This technician can only be appointed to answer a question of fact (Art. 232 CPC). Appointed to examine the equipment provided by a company, the technician cannot be tasked by the court with determining the liabilities incurred .

The technician must give their opinion on the points for which they were appointed. They cannot answer other questions, except with the written agreement of the parties, and must never make legal assessments (Art. 238 Code of Civil Procedure). It must be a technical mission on a factual question that requires the insights of a technician, as the court cannot delegate its powers to the technician. Thus, the court cannot appoint an expert to define, supervise, and evaluate work and settle the cost as it progresses. However, the Court of Cassation has considered that by assigning the task of controlling the execution of work and the results, the trial court entrusts a purely technical mission to the technician. Similarly, by instructing an expert to observe the consequences of the obstruction in the relations of a public industrial and commercial establishment and its users, and thus to identify the elements of commercial or moral damage suffered by it, the court has merely asked the technician to investigate the material facts that constitute the elements of damage, reserving the classification for itself. Likewise, the authorization to make material observations on public roads and in all public places does not authorize the expert to conduct an investigation.

Responsible for overseeing investigative measures, the court has the power to expand or restrict the mission assigned to the specialist (Art. 236 CPC) . However, it cannot assign the specialist the task of conciliating the parties (Art. 240 CPC). The Court of Cassation, however, considers that this prohibition does not prevent the expert from being tasked with submitting their report only if the parties fail to reach a conciliation among themselves .

The expert may be challenged for the same reasons as judges. The expert can only be challenged if they have previously been involved in the case as a judge or arbitrator or if they have advised one of the parties . According to the Court of Cassation, the application for disqualification of a specialist aims, on a different legal basis, at the same ends as the application for replacement of the specialist for failure to fulfill their duties . However, the Court of Cassation has held that criticism of the expert's technical qualities or errors of judgment is not sufficient to demonstrate a lack of impartiality . If it is a legal entity, the challenge may target both the legal entity itself and the individual(s) approved by the judge. The application for disqualification must be submitted to the judge who appointed them or to the judge responsible for oversight before the start of operations or as soon as the cause for disqualification is revealed . The specialist who considers themselves disqualified must immediately declare it to the judge who appointed them or to the judge responsible for oversight (Art. 234 CPC). The latter proceeds with the replacement of the disqualified specialist. The same applies if they refuse the mission or if there is a legitimate impediment. The specialist who fails in their duties may also be replaced after being heard (Art. 235 CPC) . In all cases, the decision that merely declares inadmissible the application for disqualification of the appointed expert cannot be the subject of an appeal to the Court of Cassation  or a third-party opposition .

Cass. 1re civ., 26 November 1980, LawLex202300005091JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 5 December 1973, LawLex202300005041JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 February 2006, LawLex202300007075JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 March 1979, LawLex202400008927JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 7 January 2010, LawLex202300010755JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 April 2009, LawLex202200010830JBJ, holds that the director who is aware of the accounting expertise missions previously conducted by the expert with companies he managed, and who did not use the opportunity to obtain compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by challenging the expert pursuant to Article 234 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unequivocally waived the right to invoke it by failing to do so before the start of the expert operations; 18 November 2010, LawLex202400008930JBJ, specifies that the request for challenging an expert is not admissible after the submission of the expert report.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 December 2005, LawLex202400008934JBJ, which holds that it is sufficient for the expert to have been invited to present their observations, as Article 235 does not require the technician whose replacement is requested to be summoned to the hearing of the proceedings.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 October 1986, LawLex202300005051JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 24 June 2004, LawLex202300005054JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 19 December 1973, LawLex202400008869JBJ, JCP 1974. II. 17790, note Assouline; RTD civ. 1974. 857, obs. Perrot.

Cass. com., 20 September 2016, LawLex202200007225JBJ, by asking the expert to provide an opinion on the origin and relevance of all operating expenses, on the profit that should have been realized by the company, and on the possible accounting regularization and reintegration or exclusion of operating expenses, the Court of Appeal only entrusted this technician with technical investigations relating to factual questions from which it reserved the right to draw legal consequences.

Cass. civ. 3e, 19 December 1983, LawLex202300005043JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ. 1re, 5 December 1973, LawLex202300005041JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 13 January 1982, LawLex202300005042JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 February 1980, LawLex202300003636JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 18 September 2008, LawLex202300004934JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 21 March 1979, LawLex202300005180JBJ.

1. Ordinary Law of Civil Procedure

157. Extent

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

157. Extent

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