Contesting a Forged Signature and Expertise Report

Extract

[...] In this case, the report was not submitted to the free contradictory discussion of the parties, inasmuch as no pre-report was made in order that the parties could present their observations. Therefore, the principle of contradictoriness has not been respected. Therefore, the expertise report not having been submitted to the principle of contradictoriness, the judge will not be able to validly base his decision on it. On the contestation of the expertise report The expert designated by the judge must personally carry out his mission (article 233 of the CPC). [...]

[...] The judge ordered a graphological expertise and an expert report was issued. However, Quentin and the other party did not participate in any expertise operation, and the report was signed by another expert than the one designated by the judge, the expert having added the mention 'read and approved' before signing it in turn. The question is, on the one hand, what Quentin can do to contest the forged signature on the other hand, whether the expertise is in line with the principle of contradictoriness and finally, whether Quentin can contest the validity of the report due to the facts related to the experts involved Contesting Quentin's signature When a party does not recognize the writing attributed to them, the judge is required to verify the accuracy of the contested writing (Article 287, paragraph 1 of the CPC). [...]

[...] Thus, Quentin can contest the signature and ask the judge to carry out a handwriting verification on the basis of Article 287 of the CPC. On the principle of contradictoriness The judge must observe, and have observed, the principle of contradictoriness (Article 16, paragraph 1 of the CPC), so that all parties must be heard contradictorily, having the ability to be aware of and discuss any document or observation presented to the judge. (Cass. civ. 1he July 2004, n°01-14.506). In this case, the expert's report was not transmitted to the parties, and they did not participate in it either. [...]

[...] In this case, the expertise report was signed by another expert than the one designated, and the designated expert in turn signed the report by writing the mention 'read and approved'. Therefore, the expertise report was not carried out by the designated expert, the latter simply signed the said expertise. Therefore, the principle that the expertise must be carried out personally by the designated expert was not respected. Therefore, Quentin can request the nullity of the expertise not having been carried out by the designated expert. [...]