Introduction

Proceedings with mandatory representation

Proceedings without mandatory representation

Contentious matters

Scope

Proceedings

Non-contentious matters

Proceedings before full bench

Interim orders

Orders on ex parte application (sur requête)

Powers of the First president

3. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal

Article 930-1, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure states that procedural documents are submitted to the court electronically, failing which they will be deemed inadmissible ex officio . Initiated by the Magendie Decree, the dematerialization of procedural documents was established by the Order of 30 March 2011, concerning electronic communication in proceedings with mandatory representation b …

Electronic transmission of procedural documents

Article 930-1, para. 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure states that procedural documents are submitted to the court electronically, failing which they will be deemed inadmissible ex officio . Initiated by the Magendie Decree, the dematerialization of procedural documents was established by the Order of 30 March 2011, concerning electronic communication in proceedings with mandatory representation before the courts of appeal , which has been amended several times and is now repealed. The text provided that “the sending and submission of notices of appeal and acts of instructon of counsel , as well as the documents associated with them, must be done electronically” .

The electronic transmission of procedural documents is subject to Articles 930-1 to 930-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, established by Decree No 2009-1524 of 9 December 2009. These texts constitute common provisions for procedures with mandatory representation: ordinary procedure (Articles 901 to 916, Code of Civil Procedure), fixed-date procedure (Articles 917 to 925, Code of Civil Procedure), and appeal by joint petition (Articles 926 to 930, Code of Civil Procedure).

The rule of mandatory electronic communication, however, has an exception provided by paragraph 2 of Article 930-1, for documents that cannot be transmitted electronically for reasons beyond the control of the person performing the act. In this case, it is prepared on paper and submitted to the court registry or sent by registered mail with a request for acknowledgment of receipt. In this case, the notice of appeal is submitted or sent to the registry in as many copies as there are recipient parties, plus two . The submission is recorded by noting its date and the clerk's endorsement on each copy, one of which is immediately returned. According to the Court of Cassation, by requiring the party to perform the expected diligence by submitting the document on paper, Article 930-1, paragraph 2, addresses a difficulty inherent in electronic communication . The text does not offer an alternative between hand delivery and sending by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt, but requires submission to the registry, recording this submission by noting its date and the clerk's endorsement on each copy, and finally the immediate return of a copy thus dated and endorsed. The use of the concept of immediate return of one of the copies, combined with the absence of provision for sending by simple or registered mail at the registry's expense, thus implies the completion of these formalities in one go and not a lengthy exchange by mail .

To apply Article 930-1, the Court of Appeal must determine with sufficient reasons that the lawyer was prevented from submitting their notice of appeal electronically due to a cause beyond their control . The impossibility of submitting a procedural document electronically for a cause beyond the control of the person performing it is thus characterized when a company had to intervene for three days to investigate the malfunction affecting the computer equipment of the appellant's counsel, which made internet navigation and, consequently, access to the professional virtual network of lawyers impossible . This is also the case when the appellant's counsel proves that they requested their subscription to e-barreau, renewed their request with complaints, and that the necessary equipment, USB key, and personal code, were delivered only after the expiration of the appeal period . Similarly, a Court of Appeal cannot dismiss the existence of a cause beyond control, within the meaning of Article 930-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the obstacle encountered due to the size of the submissions, exceeding the system's limit, could be overcome by splitting the submission into several successive messages with the same subject, when no provision requires the parties to limit the size of their submissions to the court or to submit a procedural document in several split submissions . The cause beyond control in Article 930-1 should not be confused with force majeure, constituted by a circumstance not attributable to the party's actions and which is insurmountable for them, from Article 911, which allows for the avoidance of the lapse of the notice of appeal or the inadmissibility of the submissions.

The obligation of electronic transmission is reciprocal. Therefore, notices, warnings, or summonses must be delivered to the parties' lawyers electronically, except in cases of impossibility due to reasons beyond the sender's control (Art. 930-1, para. 4, CPC). The methods of exchange are set by order (Art. 930-1, para. 5, CPC). According to the Court of Cassation, as Article 930-1 merely sets the procedures by which the prescribed diligences must be carried out, the pre-trial judge is competent to declare inadmissible the submissions that have not complied with the prescribed formalism .

The order of 20 May 2020, amended by the order of 25 February 2022 , provides for electronic transmission via an XML file  intended for automated processing by the recipient's computer application (Art. 3). When a document is attached to the act, it expressly refers to this document, which is disclosed in a separate PDF file produced either by means of a scanning device if the document to be disclosed is on paper, or by direct recording in PDF format using the computer tool used to create and store the original document in digital form (Art. 4) . If, pursuant to Article 4 of the order of 20 May 2020, when a document must be attached to the act, this act expressly refers to this document, such a requirement is specific to the provisions relating to the technical processes used in electronic communication and does not constitute a substantive or mandatory public policy provision, within the meaning of Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whose non-compliance would affect the act itself .

The provisions relating to electronic transmission do not apply to union representatives (Art. 930-2, para. 1, Code of Civil Procedure), whose procedural acts may be prepared on paper and submitted to the court registry or sent by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt , with the notice of appeal also being submitted or sent to the registry in as many copies as there are recipient parties, plus two. When the notice of appeal is made by mail, the registry records the act on its date and sends a receipt by regular mail. Finally, Article 930-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that notifications between a lawyer and a union representative are made by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt or by means of service.

Cass. 2e civ., 7 December 2017, LawLex202400000396JBJ, which holds that only procedural acts intended for the Court of Appeal must be submitted electronically, is valid, pursuant to Article 930-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the submission to the court registry of the application prepared on paper requesting the first president of the Court of Appeal to set the day on which the case will be called as a matter of priority.

Cass. 2e civ., 25 June 2015, LawLex202400000365JBJ.

The Order of 25 February 2022, amending the order of 20 May 2020 regarding electronic communication in civil matters before the Court of Appeal, is immediately applicable to ongoing proceedings for notices of appeal filed prior to its entry into force, provided they have not been annulled by an order of the competent judge that has not been subject to a referral within the required time limit, or by a decision of a Court of Appeal ruling on referral. See CA Paris, 4 July 2024, LawLex202400005376JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 7 March 2024, LawLex202400008709JBJ, which holds that such a limitation period is specific to the provisions relating to technical processes used in electronic communication and does not constitute a substantive or mandatory public policy formality, within the meaning of Article 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the non-compliance of which would affect the act itself.

Cass. 2e civ., 7 March 2024, LawLex202400008270JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 September 2018, LawLex202400000373JBJ: the lawyer who appears in a Court of Appeal other than the one in the jurisdiction where they are established must, since they cannot use electronic means, prepare procedural documents on paper. The transmission by postal mail of the notice of appeal does not equate to a submission, within the meaning of Articles 930-1 and 930-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it does not meet the requirements of an effective submission that covers all eventualities, extending to the personal observations of the court clerk responsible for the immediate return of a copy indicating the date of submission and bearing their endorsement.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 May 2014, LawLex202400000362JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 27 September 2018, LawLex202300002672JBJ.

CA Versailles, 9 May 2017, LawLex202400008689JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 September 2018, LawLex202300002656JBJ: a Court of Appeal cannot declare an appeal admissible on the grounds that it is stated in the notice of appeal by the court registry that “the appeal was registered at the registry due to a technical problem,” the fact that a virtual private network email of the lawyers (réseau privé virtuel des avocats - RPVA) may have been sent by the registry on the same day to the respondent's counsel not excluding in itself the existence of a malfunction on the one hand between the Court of Appeal's service and certain other firms, without establishing that the appellant company's lawyer had been prevented from transmitting their notice of appeal electronically due to a cause beyond their control.

Cass. 2e civ., 10 June 2021, LawLex202300002659JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 May 2014, LawLex202400000362JBJ.- Cf. Cass. 2e civ., 5 January 2017, LawLex202400000326JBJ, having noted that on the last day of the time limit for filing an appeal, the appellant's lawyer was unable to submit the notice of appeal electronically due to not being connected to the virtual professional network of lawyers, a Court of Appeal was able to hold, after having independently assessed the evidence submitted to it, that there was no justification for a foreign cause, within the meaning of Article 930-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and declared the appeal inadmissible.

Cass. 2e civ., 16 November 2017, LawLex202400003474JBJ.

3. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal

6. Electronic transmission of procedural documents

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

6. Electronic transmission of procedural documents

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