Late Conclusions and Contradictoriness in Judicial Proceedings
Download
Read an extract
Themes
Late conclusions, principle of contradictoriness, judicial proceedings, procedural means, CPC Article 15, CPC Article 16, CPC Article 803, Court of Cassation rulings, admissibility of conclusions, revocation of closing order
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 3
Abstract
Analysis of procedural means available to a party when faced with late conclusions and the principle of contradictoriness in a judicial context.
Extract
[...] The Court of Cassation has ruled several times on the deadlines for communicating conclusions, considering that conclusions communicated 8 minutes before the start of the hearing were inadmissible. (Cass. civ. 3and March 2006, n°04-18.327), at the same time as those communicated 14 days before the closing (Cass. civ. 3and May 2006, n°04-17.179). When the conclusions are communicated late, the judge has the power to exclude them from the debates (Cass. civ. 2and March 1981, n°79-16.950). In this case, the conclusions were communicated the day before the date set by the JME for its closing order. [...]
[...] The conclusions communicated 14 days before the closing being considered as inadmissible due to their late communication, the conclusions communicated the day before the closing must therefore also be so. In addition, the judge must ensure the principle of adversarial proceedings, so that he must ensure that the party having received the late conclusions had time to discuss them usefully (Cass. civ. 2and October 1986, n°84-17.724). Finally, the closing order can be revoked at the request of the parties (article 803 paragraph 3 of the CPC) when they do not have sufficient time to respond to their opponent's conclusions (Cass. [...]
[...] In this case, the report was not submitted to the free discussion of the parties since it was transmitted to Quentin the day before the closing order, preventing him from being able to discuss it contradictorily with the opposing party. The judge can only base his decision on elements that have been debated contradictorily by the parties (Article 16 paragraph 3 of the CPC). In this case, the report was not debated contradictorily by the parties. Thus, Quentin can request that the private medical report be excluded from the debates on the basis of the non-respect of the principle of contradictoriness. [...]
[...] The question is to determine the procedural means that Quentin can oppose to Julien and Charlotte. It is necessary to dwell on the late conclusions and on the principle of contradictoriness On the late conclusions The parties must make their respective means known in due time (article 15 of the CPC), so that the conclusions must be communicated in due time (Cass. civ. 3and March 2006, n°04-18.327). In this case, the conclusions were filed by Julien and Charlotte's lawyer the day before the closing order. [...]
