Judicial review, JME, unfair competition, provision on damages, seizure of USB keys, cancellation of hearing, late submission, CPC Article 16, CPC Article 15, CPC Article 789
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
A company seeks a provision on damages and interest, seizure of USB keys, and cancellation of a hearing in a judicial procedure against Thomas for unfair competition.
Extract
[...] In this case, the USB keys were entered into the file the day before the closing order. The Court of Cassation having considered that documents entered 3 days before the date of the closing order were not entered in good time, it is evident that the USB keys cannot be considered as entered into the debate in good time in view of the date on which they were entered and the date of the closing order. Thus, the USB keys having been entered into the file late, the judge could validly exclude them from the debates in his decision. [...]
[...] In this case, the company may request such a provision which will probably be granted by the JME. Thus, the company may request from the JME the provision ad litem, and the provision due to the non-seriously contestable obligation, at her expense to dismantle the existence of this obligation. On the seizure of USB keys The JME is alone competent, from its designation, until its disqualification to order investigation measures, on request or ex officio (article 789 5° of the CPC), of which it will appraise sovereignly the opportunity of the measure taking into account the circumstances of the case (Cass. [...]
[...] Judicial Review CASE PRACTICE - PROCEDURE BEFORE THE JME The company BMC brought an action before the judicial court against Thomas for unfair competition. A JME was appointed on February and set the date for the closing order on September The company wished to have the USB drives containing evidence of unfair competition seized because it feared that Thomas would destroy them. The said USB drives were submitted to the file on September but the judges, considering the submission to be late, dismissed all of the company's requests. [...]
[...] When documents have not been communicated in good time, the judge may exclude them from the proceedings (Article 135 of the CPC). In this case, the closing order was set on September and the USB keys were entered into the file the day before, September 18, 2020. The assessment of the delay in the communication of the documents falls within the sovereign findings of the judges of the facts, so it was estimated that the documents communicated three days before the closing order, had not been communicated in good time in the sense of Articles 15 and 135 of the CPC. [...]
[...] On the cancellation of the hearing of the pleadings In the context of a judicial procedure, when the parties agree, the said procedure can unfold without a hearing (Article L212-5-1 of the COJ). The parties can agree at any time during the procedure. If this is the case, the procedure will unfold without an oral hearing, the exchanges between the parties will be exclusively written and organized by the judge, under the principle of contradictoriness (Article 828 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the CPC). In this case, the company fears that the hearing of the pleadings will be cancelled. [...]
