Introduction

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction

Extensions of jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

Initiation of the proceedings

Instructing counsel

Submissions

Registry

Rules common to all procedures

Ordinary contentious procedure

Non-contentious proceedings

Single-judge procedure

Fixed-date procedure

Written procedure

Ordinary procedure

Interim relief proceedings

Expedited trial on the merits

Oral proceedings

Ex parte proceedings (sur requête)

Referral procedure by decision of the criminal court

Specific procedures

Proceedings before the Judicial Court

Initiation of proceedings

Proceedings

General procedure

Interim orders

Orders on ex parte application

Expedited proceedings on the merits

Powers of the President

Proceedings before the Commercial Court

Proceedings before the Judicial Court and the Commercial Court

2. Proceedings before the Judicial Court and the Commercial Court

Article 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the parties to disclose to each other, “in a timely manner,” the factual arguments on which they base their claims, the evidence they produce, and the legal arguments they invoke, so that each party is able to organize their defense.

The court is responsible for ensuring the proper conduct of proceedings (Art. 3 Code of Civil Procedure). In this capacity, it has the power to set time limits and order the necessary measures to adhere to the procedural schedule. Article 780, para. 2, further assigns the pre-trial judge the task of ensuring the fair conduct of the procedure, particularly by monitoring the timeliness of the exchange of submissions and the disclosure of exhibits. Finally, Article 135 provides that the court may exclude from the proceedings any exhibits that have not been disclosed “in due time,” thus ensuring compliance with the adversarial principle and the fairness of the trial.

If Article 802 provides that after the closure order , no submissions may be filed nor any exhibits produced in the proceedings, on pain of inadmissibility pronounced ex officio , it remains imperative that this disclosure occurs in a timely manner, in order to respect the adversarial principle.

The assessment of the lateness of the disclosure of submissions falls under the sovereign findings of the trial courts. Thus, even if submissions filed shortly before the order closing the preparatory phase , or on the same day , are deemed served before that date, the court is required to verify whether they were filed in a timely manner. The courts have thus been able to consider that submissions transmitted three days , eight days , or even fourteen days  before the order closing the preparatory phase, although respecting the deadline set by the pre-trial judge, were not transmitted in a timely manner and exclude them from the proceedings. It has also been ruled that a party prevents its opponent from asserting its arguments in a timely manner when it files submissions and discloses exhibits on the very day the closure of the investigation is scheduled and repeats this behavior by filing summary submissions eight days before the order closing the preparatory phase, without invoking a legitimate reason .

When the procedure is oral, the Court of Cassation considers that the courts cannot disregard the exhibits and claims contained in the latest submissions of a party nor reject its applications on the grounds that they do not appear in its initial submissions. As long as it is established that the parties' submissions were presented orally at the hearing, the courts are required to examine the claims thus formulated . However, in other proceedings before the Judicial Court, the judge cannot disregard submissions and exhibits disclosed without ensuring that the concerned parties were aware of the date set for the closure of the investigation . The judge must also verify whether these submissions required a response and specify the particular circumstances that prevented compliance with the adversarial principle or characterized behavior contrary to the fairness of the proceedings . An obligation to conduct an in concreto analysis before disregarding the disputed submissions thus rests on the judge.

Cass. 3e civ., 13 January 1981, LawLex202500000141JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 11 January 2001 LawLex202500000143JBJ: if the submissions filed on the day of the closure order are not considered late, it means they were submitted before the closure order; 13 November 2015, LawLex202500000142JBJ: holding that submissions filed on the same day as the closure order, but subsequently, are inadmissible.

Cass. 2e civ., 4 June 1975, LawLex202500000291JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 8 February 1977, LawLex202500000293JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 25 October 1978, LawLex202500000304JBJ; 16 July 1979, LawLex202500000294JBJ; 27 April 1981, LawLex202500000318JBJ; 27 May 1983, LawLex202500000295JBJ; 5 June 1985, LawLex202500000296JBJ; 21 October 1987, LawLex202500000297JBJ; 26 November 1990, LawLex202500000144JBJ; 3 November 1993, LawLex202500000110JBJ; 11 July 1994, LawLex202500000298JBJ; 7 December 1994, LawLex202500000299JBJ; Cass. 1re civ., 11 June 2008, LawLex202500000111JBJ; Cass. 2e civ., 13 November 2015, LawLex202500000142JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 11 January 2006, LawLex202200005706JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 10 March 2009, LawLex202400000870JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 11 July 1988, LawLex202500000306JBJ: holding that a plea of inadmissibility raised late, on the same day as the closing order, by one of the parties without giving the other the opportunity to present its defense, cannot be upheld; Cass. 1re civ., 16 July 1998, LawLex202400009962JBJ: holding that submissions filed on the same day but after the court registry has closed will only be recorded the following day and are therefore automatically inadmissible; Cass. 2e civ., 11 January 2001, LawLex202500000143JBJ: holding that submissions filed on the day of the closing order are not late, provided they precede it; Cass. 2e civ., 25 February 2010, LawLex202400009557JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 20 March 1991, LawLex202500000309JBJ; Cass. mixte, 3 February 2006, LawLex202200006708JBJ, contra: Cass. 2e civ., 22 March 2006, LawLex202200005730JBJ, holding that where the defendant submitted submissions in response to the claimant’s previous pleadings within the time limit set by the pre-trial judge, three days before the closing order, the submissions and exhibits were communicated in due time within the meaning of Articles 15 and 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Cass. 1re civ., 17 November 2010, LawLex202300014106JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 28 May 1990, LawLex202500000308JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 23 May 2006, LawLex202200005679JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 23 October 2003, LawLex202200005732JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 June 2013, LawLex202200005783JBJ, concerning the local court.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 July 2004, LawLex202200005698JBJ; Also see 23 March 1994, LawLex202300014101JBJ: considering that the pre-trial judge is not required to order the appellant to file submissions when it appears from the case file that the attorneys had been informed several months earlier of the date of the closure of the investigation.

39. Time-limits for disclosure