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

In the context of expedited proceedings or preparation for trial, submissions are governed by Articles 915 to 915-2, as derived from Decree No 2023-1391 of 29 December 2023 simplifying the appeal procedure in civil matters. They must also comply with the provisions set out in Articles 954 and 961, which do not apply when the procedure is without mandatory representation .
1) Common provisions for  …

Specifics of appeal submissions

In the context of expedited proceedings or preparation for trial, submissions are governed by Articles 915 to 915-2, as derived from Decree No 2023-1391 of 29 December 2023 simplifying the appeal procedure in civil matters. They must also comply with the provisions set out in Articles 954 and 961, which do not apply when the procedure is without mandatory representation .

1) Common provisions for expedited proceedings or preparation for trial

The submissions required by Articles 906-2 and 908 to 910 are those addressed to the court, filed with the court registry, and served within the time limits provided by these texts, which determine the subject matter of the dispute (Art. 915 CPC). To clarify the common provisions applicable to the parties' submissions, the decree of 29 December 2023 established Articles 915-1 to 915-4. According to Article 915-1, submissions are served and exhibits disclosed simultaneously by each party's lawyer to the other party's lawyer, and, in the case of multiple claimants or defendants, to all appointed lawyers (para. 1). A copy of the submissions must be filed with the court registry with proof of their service (para. 2). Exhibits disclosed and filed in support of inadmissible submissions are themselves inadmissible (para. 3). According to the Court of Cassation, exhibits invoked in support of claims that are not disclosed simultaneously with the service of submissions must be disregarded .

The heads of the judgment's operative part criticized and mentioned in the notice of appeal may, pursuant to Article 915-2, paragraph 1, be supplemented, subtracted, or corrected by the principal appellant in the operative part of their first submissions filed within the time limits provided for in Articles 906-2, paragraph 1, and 908. The court is seized of the heads of the judgment's operative part thus determined and those dependent on them. Furthermore, on pain of inadmissibility, raised ex officio, the parties must present all their claims on the merits as soon as the submissions mentioned in Articles 906-2 and 908 to 910 are filed . Inadmissibility may also be invoked by the party against whom subsequent claims are made (Art. 915-2, para. 2, CPC). Nevertheless, and without prejudice to Article 914-3, claims intended to respond to opposing submissions and exhibits or to have questions judged that arose, after the first submissions, from the intervention of a third party or the occurrence or revelation of a fact remain admissible within the limits of the criticized heads of the judgment's operative part and those dependent on them (Art. 915-2, para. 3, CPC).

2) Provisions applicable within the framework of proceedings with mandatory representation

Decree 2023-1391 also revised Article 954 applicable to appeal submissions, regardless of the party concerned, primarily by amending its paragraph 2. Appeal submissions differ from those at first instance as they must take into account the judgment that has already occurred. Under Article 954, paragraph 1, they contain, in the header, the information provided for in Article 960, paragraphs 2 to 4, to which Article 961 refers, and expressly state the claims of the parties and the factual and legal grounds on which each of these claims is based, with an indication for each claim of the exhibits invoked and their numbering. A summary list of exhibits is attached . The Court of Cassation has clarified that the absence of reference by the submissions to the exhibits produced, which is not subject to any sanction, does not exempt the Court of Appeal from its obligation to examine the exhibits duly submitted to the proceedings and clearly identified in the submissions made in support of the appellant's claims . While Article 954, paragraph 2, in its version prior to Decree 2023-1391 , only required that the submissions include a distinct statement of facts and procedure and a discussion of claims and grounds (requirements retained in the new version of this text), as well as the statement of the contested points of judgment and a summary of the claims, Article 954, paragraph 2, now provides that the submissions must distinctly include:

- a discussion of the claims and arguments and;

- a provision in which the appellant indicates whether they are requesting the annulment or reversal of the judgment  and states, if they conclude for reversal, the parts of the judgment's provision criticized, and in which all parties summarize their claims ; if, in the discussion, new arguments compared to previous submissions are invoked in support of the claims, they are presented in a formally distinct manner.

Para. 3 then adds that the court rules only on the claims stated in the dispositive and examines the grounds supporting these claims only if they are raised in the discussion. The provisions of paras. 2 and 3, which require the presentation, in the submissions, of the claims as well as the grounds supporting these claims, aim to allow, by introducing a discussion, to distinguish them from the statement of facts and procedure, the enumeration of the criticized points of judgment, and the dispositive summarizing the claims, and tend to ensure clarity and readability of the parties' pleadings . The text, which establishes a principle of structuring the parties' pleadings and aims at an objective of good administration of justice, delineates the scope of the claims on which the Court of Appeal is required to rule and the grounds it must consider .

The parties reiterate, in their final submissions, the claims and arguments previously presented or invoked in their earlier submissions. Failing this, they are deemed to have abandoned them  and the court rules only on the final submissions filed (para. 4) . The party seeking to overturn the judgment must expressly state the arguments it invokes without referring to its submissions from the first instance (para. 5) .

The party that does not file submissions or that, without stating new arguments, requests the confirmation of the judgment is deemed to adopt its grounds (para. 6) . It has even been held that when the respondent's submissions have been declared inadmissible, they are deemed not to have filed submissions and, consequently, to have adopted the grounds of the judgment under appeal .

Finally, Article 961, in its version resulting from Decree No 2023-1391, provides that the submissions of the parties are signed by their lawyer and served in the form of notifications between lawyers. They are not admissible until the information mentioned in the second to fourth paragraphs of Article 960 has been provided. This cause of inadmissibility can be rectified until the day of the pronouncement of the closure or, in the absence of preparation for trial, until the opening of the proceedings (para. 1) . The disclosure of the exhibits produced is validly attested by the signature of the recipient lawyer affixed to the schedule drawn up by the lawyer who proceeds with the disclosure (para. 2). According to the Court of Cassation, the court is not authorized to verify ex officio the admissibility of the appellant's submissions with regard to the information required by Articles 960 and 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

Cass. 2e civ., 30 April 2002, LawLex202400001245JBJ, on the inapplicability of the provisions of Article 954, para. 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure when the procedure is oral; Cass. soc., 15 October 2013, LawLex202400001248JBJ, which holds that the provisions of Article 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the submissions of the parties and the instruction of counsel are not applicable to labor court proceedings, subject on appeal, due to its oral nature, to Articles 931 to 949 of this code.

Cass. avis, 25 June 2012, LawLex202300002538JBJ.

Cass. 1re civ., 17 October 2007, LawLex202400009612JBJ, reiterating the principle of the presumption of abandonment.

Cass. 2e civ., 15 November 2018, LawLex202400003638JBJ: only submissions that determine the subject matter of the dispute or raise an incident, of any nature, likely to terminate the proceedings are subject to the provisions of Article 954, para. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure; 8 January 2015, LawLex202200008112JBJ, holding that any formula of referral or reference to previous pleadings does not meet the requirements of the text and is devoid of effect; 24 January 2008, LawLex202400003643JBJ: submissions that present a request for expert assessment without determining the subject matter of the dispute or raising an incident likely to terminate the proceedings do not fall under Article 954, para. 2, now para. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure; 21 April 2005, LawLex202400003639JBJ: the appellants' submissions filed after a preliminary judgment that only respond to the specific questions posed by that judgment do not fall under the provisions of Article 954, para. 2, now para. 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure; 3 May 2001, LawLex202400003642JBJ: submissions that exclusively aim at the inadmissibility of the appellant's submissions as late are not subject to the provisions of Article 954, para. 2, of the new Code of Civil Procedure, now para. 4, as they do not determine the subject matter of the dispute nor raise an incident likely to terminate the proceedings.

Cass. 1re civ., 3 May 2018, LawLex202400009611JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 15 April 2008, LawLex202400009610JBJ, which reiterates the principle.

CA Paris, 17 October 2024, LawLex202400008049JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 14 October 2004, LawLex202400003645JBJ: the provisions of Article 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which establish a temporary inadmissibility of appeal submissions until the information mentioned in paragraphs [2 to 4] of Article 960 has been provided, do not violate the guarantees of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the principle of the right of access to the court, as this information is necessary to safeguard the rights of the opposing party and the concerned party only needs to disclose it to regularize the procedure; 21 October 2010, LawLex202400003640JBJ; 24 January 2008, LawLex202400003643JBJ: even if the submissions filed by the appellant do not indicate their profession, domicile, nationality, date, and place of birth, they are nonetheless admissible as long as this information, provided for in Articles 960 and 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whose accuracy is not contested, has been included in the notice of appeal.

Cass. com., 6 December 2016, LawLex201600001376JBJ.

On the concept of claim, see CA Colmar, 25 September 2024, LawLex202400007282JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 6 June 2019, LawLex202400009609JBJ, which holds that the fact that exhibits produced are not listed in the summary schedule does not allow the court to exclude them from the proceedings.

Cass. 2e civ., 28 November 2024, LawLex202500006432JBJ: a contrary solution would deprive the appellant of the right of access to a court enshrined in Article 6, § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

CE, 13 November 2019, LawLex202400003637JBJ: the provisions of Article 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stemming from Decree No 2017-891 of 6 May 2017, which apply in all appeal proceedings and pursue the general interest objective of proper administration of justice, set out simple formal rules regarding the presentation and structuring of submissions and are not prescribed on pain of inadmissibility of the appeal, so they cannot infringe the right to a remedy and the right of access to the court.

Cass. 2e civ., 14 September 2023, LawLex202400000647JBJ; CA Paris, 3 July 2024, LawLex202400005334JBJ; CA Angers, 22 October 2024, LawLex202400008687JBJ.

The obligation imposed on the party seeking to overturn the judgment to expressly state in its final submissions the arguments it invokes does not extend to the submissions of the same party that, without stating new arguments, requests partial confirmation of the judgment: See, Cass. 1re civ., 22 January 2020, LawLex202000000139JBJ.

Cass. 2e civ., 8 September 2022, LawLex202400009458JBJ.

Cass. 3e civ., 9 January 2025, LawLex202500006433JBJ: by examining only the arguments raised in the discussion section in support of the claims stated in the operative part, the court of appeal, which does not base its decision on a legal argument it would have raised ex officio, is not required to seek the prior observations of the parties.

3. Proceedings before the Court of Appeal

11. Specifics of appeal submissions

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

11. Specifics of appeal submissions

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