Jurisdiction attribution, court of cassation, civil procedure, jurisdictional rate, connected claims, appeal courts, tribunal judiciaire, court of appeal, cassation appeal, jurisdictional competence, civil chamber, amount of claims, court of first instance, jurisprudence, articles 35 and 605 civil procedure code, inadmissibility, pyramidal structure, civil litigation, judicial process, court jurisdiction, appeal procedure, cassation procedure, judicial decision, jurisdictional threshold, total value of claims, moral damage, disturbance of enjoyment, malfunctioning device, reimbursement costs, judicial review, legal proceedings, court of Versailles, supreme court, judicial hierarchy, civil law, judicial interpretation, legal jurisdiction, court competence, appeal rights, judicial structure, cassation jurisdiction, judicial procedure, legal framework, court decisions, jurisdictional rules, civil justice, judicial system
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The Court of Cassation judgment addresses the jurisdiction of attribution in cases with connected claims, determining the court's competence based on the total value of the claims.
Extract
[...] The second civil chamber of the Court of Cassation made a ruling on June published in the Bulletin. It declared the appeal inadmissible and thus condemned the spouses to pay the costs. It based its decision on the references to Articles 35 and 605 of the Civil Procedure Code and R 221-4, paragraph 2 of the Judicial Organization Code. Thus, according to the supreme judges, «the total value of these claims exceeding, due to their connectivity, the jurisdictional rate of the court of first instance, the judgment, inaccurately qualified as a decision rendered in the last resort, is susceptible to appeal In order to study the decision, it will be necessary to focus first on the jurisdiction and, in particular, the fixing of the jurisdictional rate in the last resort of the former court of first instance before analyzing the necessary respect of the pyramidal structure or the degree of jurisdiction in a second time (II). [...]
[...] This is the case of the subrogation of the assignee in the rights of the assignor within collective procedures or the implementation of the TAE experiment, that is to say the courts of digital activities provided for by article 26 of law n° 2023-1059 of 20 November 2023. [...]
[...] Representation by a lawyer is not obligatory. The judges recall here the rules of evaluation in the matter of plurality of demands. When there are several initial demands (the condemnation to the payment of 3479 euros in reimbursement of the expenses incurred and 3000 euros in compensation for the damage and the disturbance of enjoyment suffered), against the same defendant (the company Indépendance Royale), it is then appropriate, according to the judges, to add the value of all the demands on condition that the facts are connected. [...]
[...] In this case, the supreme judges have therefore limited access to the appeal in cassation insofar as all previous avenues of appeal have not been exhausted. It therefore leaves it to the court of appeal to provide its insight in the first instance as to the decision of the tribunal d'instance when the parties have appealed. This solution is logical. In fact, clear rules and principles are set by the texts, it is then necessary to follow them. The judge has only applied the law in this case. [...]
[...] Here, the judges are calling on the parties to lodge an appeal against the decision rendered by the first level of jurisdiction, by the court of first instance. The competence of attribution, particularly from the point of view of the amount of claims, has allowed the judges to recall the need to respect the pyramidal structure within the civil procedure. II- The necessary respect of the pyramidal structure The respect of the pyramidal structure, i.e. the respect of the degrees of jurisdiction is necessary in civil procedure. [...]
