Court of Cassation Ruling on Appeal Against Judicial Administrative Measures

Extract

[...] The Court of Cassation therefore authorizes the appeal against the order to strike out, a solution that testifies to a complex and casuistic regime of appeals opened against judicial administrative measures. The hybrid and jurisprudential regime of judicial administrative measures: the balance between the interests of the parties and those of the public service of justice The solution of the Court of Cassation is part of a line of jurisprudence since the condemnation of France by the judgment Chatellier. In fact, after having lodged an appeal against a judicial administrative measure in case of abuse of power and risk of infringement of the right of appeal by the judgment of 9 January 2020, the Court of Cassation also retained the same solution by a judgment of 16 December 2021 in the event of a judicial administrative measure involving an abuse of power and raising the issue of the secrecy of the investigation. [...]

[...] In parallel, the company, defendant in the appeal, files an incidental request, arguing that the applicants' means are inadmissible, as according to Article 537 of the CPC, a judicial administrative measure cannot be the subject of any appeal. Therefore, the Court of Cassation had to ask itself whether the order to dismiss the case preparation counsel for the parties' failure to comply with the injunction to synthesize the writings constituted a judicial administrative measure, susceptible to appeal. The Court of Cassation declares the means admissible. [...]

[...] This is justified by the nature of judicial administrative measures. In accordance with the jurisprudence, a judicial administrative measure is a decision that does not harm the parties. This justifies that it cannot be the subject of appeals, because the parties do not have an interest in acting, they do not have an advantage to draw from appealing a judicial administrative measure, which takes into account the public interest of the justice service, and not the parties. Furthermore, Article 912 of the CPC states that the bailiff of the case may, ex officio,take a motivated order of dismissal not susceptible to appeal » ifif the parties abstain from performing the procedural acts incumbent upon them within the deadlines. [...]

[...] However, he must not overstep his functions and powers under Articles 912 and following of the CPC, with injunctions depriving the parties of their rights. This solution testifies to the complexity of the regime of judicial administrative measures. The Court of Cassation is trying to open up appeals against judicial administrative measures taken by judges who, by exceeding their powers, deprive the parties of a right. On the one hand, this current of jurisprudence is in favor of the litigants and their rights. [...]

[...] In fact, the Court, despite restrictive and cumulative conditions, now accepts opening the appeal against judicial administrative measures. On the other hand, this casuistic jurisprudence is a source of unpredictability. There is no determined list of measures that would infringe on the rights of the parties and justify the opening of an appeal. The jurisprudential solutions gradually feed this regime according to the cases brought before the Court of Cassation. The civil procedure seeks to ensure a balance between speed and the proper administration of justice, justifying the use of judicial administrative measures that are not subject to appeal, while ensuring the rights of litigants and the interests of the parties to the best extent possible. [...]