Extract
[...] The plaintiff was prejudiced by this omission in that he was not informed of the object of the appeal, therefore of the demand of the appellant. Therefore, the conditions allowing to declare an act null for formal defect are met, the appeal declaration risks being declared null. However, nullity can be covered by a later act provided that the prescription period has not intervened and that regularization leaves no prejudice (Article 115 of the CPC). Thus, it belongs to the appellant's lawyer to refile a new appeal declaration mentioning, on the one hand, the heads of the judgment explicitly criticized as well as the object of the appeal, in order to regularize the formal defects of his own. [...]
[...] The deadline for appealing began to run from the date of service of the judgment, namely 17 September, as the deadline is a French deadline and is one month. The appeal having been lodged on 7 October, the one-month deadline had not expired. Thus, the deadline for appealing was respected. On the formalism of the appeal declaration The appeal is formed by a unilateral or joint declaration (Article 900 of the CPC). In this case, the appeal was formed by a unilateral declaration emanating from the SCOR company. [...]
[...] In this case, the appeal declaration does not mention the object of the appeal and indicates 'criticize all grounds of judgment'. Or, Article 901 of the CPC prescribes, at the risk of nullity, the indication of the grounds of judgment explicitly criticized. Therefore, the appeal declaration that does not mention the grounds of the judgment and mentions 'total appeal' or 'general appeal' does not meet the requirements of Article 901 of the CPC, and is subject to nullity for irregularity of form, on condition that the party invoking it demonstrates the grievance. [...]
[...] Article 901 of the CPC, prescribed at the risk of nullity, the mention of the object of the appeal in the appeal declaration. Article 114 of the CPC provides that a procedural act can be declared null for a defect in form if 2 conditions are met, namely the prescription of nullity by a text and a grievance. In addition to these 2 conditions, nullity must be raised in limine litis, that is to say, before any defense on the merits. [...]
[...] In the event that the appeal declaration sent by simple letter to the defendant is returned to the registry, the registry must notify the appellant's lawyer, who must serve the appeal declaration on the defendant within one month from receipt of the notice (Article 902, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the CPC). In this case, the lawyer for the SCOR company took charge of serving the appeal declaration on the MARCO company. Therefore, despite the failure of the notification of the appeal declaration, its service is regular. [...]
