Vital Company Action on Behalf of Beaujardin

Extract

[...] Action and meaning PRACTICE CASE - ACTION AND SIGNIFICATION The company Vital wants to take legal action, on behalf of its subsidiary company, Beaujardin, against the company Villa. The justice commissioner (CDJ) went to the headquarters of the company Villa and served the summons by handing it to the receptionist who told him that she was authorized to receive it. The question is, on the one hand, whether the company Vital can act on behalf of its subsidiary company Beaujardin, and determine the conditions of substance and on the other hand, whether the service made by the CDJ was made in person On the action of the company Vital on behalf of the company Beaujardin The action is the right, for the author of a claim, to be heard on the merits of the latter, in the perspective that the judge declares it well or ill-founded (Article 30 paragraph 1 of the CPC). [...]

[...] In this case, the company Villa is the debtor of the company Beaujardin, and not of the company Vital. Therefore, the damage suffered by the company Beaujardin could not be the subject of a lawsuit brought by the parent company to obtain compensation, because 'no one sues by proxy'. However, if the damage suffered by the company Beaujardin has adverse effects on the company Vital, which also suffers a loss due to the claim held by its subsidiary, it will be entitled to act with interest and quality to do so. [...]

[...] 3e October 2009, n°08-15.506). A contrario, when a secretary declared herself authorized to receive the document, the service was made in person, in a regular manner (Paris September 2013), and this without the CDJ being required to verify the accuracy of the employee's statements to the company (Com November 2008, n°08-12.544). In this case, the standardist declared to the CDJ that she was authorized to receive the act. Thus, the meaning given by the CDJ to the Villa company constitutes a personal service. [...]

[...] When it concerns a legal entity, it is made in person when the document is handed over to its legal representative, or to any person having the power to receive it, or being authorized to do so (article 654 of the CPC). In this case, it was a matter of serving a summons to the Villa company, therefore to a legal entity. The CDJ served the summons by handing it over to the receptionist who declared herself authorized to receive such a document. When service in person is made to a legal entity, it will be null when the document is handed over to an employee of the company, who has not declared themselves authorized to do so. (Cass. civ. [...]