Extract
[...] The solution, respecting the rules of the authority of the thing judged, is rigorous. In addition, this solution is consistent with the rights granted to owners and, in particular, the right of the owner to receive their rents. This solution is also consistent with the notion and the contours of the transfer of ownership in law. In fact, if the transfer of ownership has been recognized, it is obvious that Mr. X can request rents, this payment is a distinct consequence of the transfer of ownership, therefore the applicant has the possibility of making a request to the Court in a separate instance. [...]
[...] An existing jurisprudential ambiguity Around these questions of concertation of means, requests and authority of the thing judged, there are, between the first and second civil chamber of the divergences well, although a decision of the plenary assembly has already been rendered on July pursuant to which: 'It is up to the applicant to present all the means he considers to be of a nature to found this one from the instance related to the first request.' Since then, while the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation does not impose on the litigants the concentration of their requests in the same instance (for example, Civ Sept No. 09-69.730), the first civil chamber, on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction (for example, Civ May 2008, n° 07-13.266). The consequence of these divergences in positioning, in point of view, in the application of principles is legal uncertainty. This legal uncertainty therefore leads to a real legal insecurity. [...]
[...] The principle of concentration of means not implying the principle of concentration of demands The judges have applied the principle of concentration of means strictly they have rejected the application of the principle of concentration of demands The strict application of the principle of concentration of means It is by applying the former article 1351 of the Civil Code and the principle it sets out that the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation has quashed the judgment of the Court It has therefore ruled thatit is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present all the means he deems capable of founding this one from the instance related to the first demand" The supreme judges have made a strict application of the principle of concentration of means, which requires the plaintiff to present all his means from the instance related to his first demand. In this case, this allows the judges to know, from the start, the entirety of the plaintiff's means and to have a more global vision of the dispute. They can therefore focus on the interests of the dispute and make a more appropriate decision. This solution and strict application also allow to unblock the jurisdictions with a single presentation of the means. [...]
[...] The applicants no longer know how to present their requests, their means to the Court in the course of a trial. The welcome solution would then be the presence of a new firm and definitive ruling by the full assembly. Note that recently, the second civil chamber has again refused the concentration of requests (Civ Dec n° 21-16.007). [...]
[...] Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber May 2011, n°10-16.735 - Does the principle of concentration of means imply, according to the supreme judges, a principle of concentration of demands ? CIVIL LAW - Concentration Commentary on the judgment - The present judgment of cassation, published in the Bulletin, rendered by the second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation on 26 May 2011 is interested in the principle of concentration of means, demands and the authority of the thing judged. In this case, Madame the beneficiary of a preferential agreement relating to the acquisition of a building, notified the owner of the building (to whom a company comes) of her acceptance of the offer. [...]
