|
|
Credit for a trade
|
|
 Some procedural aspects of the treatment of the over-indebtedness
We will restrict ourselves here to mention two recurring questions in the appeals whose 1st Room is seized: the orality of the procedure, and the respect of contradiction.
The difficulties come from the telescoping of the law of 1989, in which the procedure was oral and sometimes even gracious, with the law of February 8, 1995, which, while seeking to reduce the task of the judges of the over-indebtedness, set up a mixed procedure, to the image of that which is held in front of the judge of the execution.
With this intention, it distinguished two phases in the legal process: the phase of instruction of the file, and the phase of decision itself.
This final stage does not pose problem because it is strictly regulated: the procedure is contentious, and oral, the judge must convene the parts with the audience, it can however authorize them to present written observations, under the conditions fixed by articles 13 and 14 of the decree of July 31, 1992.
The phase of instruction is more problematic, it starts with the admissibility of the request and is completed with the attribution of the executory force to measurements recommended.
Put aside the suspension of the ways of execution, which obeys the procedure of the ordinances on request, all the recourse exerted during this phase (that it is against the decision of admissibility of the request or against the state of the credits established by the commission) are subjected to a procedure is mixed, or rather alternative.
The texts indicate that the judge rules after having asked or having collected for the observations of the parts.
The 1st Room in deduced that an option opened to the judge:
1° is it causes an audience, and it follows, then, the rules of the oral procedure: the parts which do not arise cannot present written observations, if they present some, the judge cannot hold account of it
2° is it rules without debate, and it must ask the parts to present their observations written within a time that it specify (Civ. 1st, July 4, 2000, Bull. n° 206)
This written procedure does not exempt it obviously to respect the principle of contradiction by checking that the parts communicated their written observations before it rules (Civ. 1st, November 21, 2000, Bull. n° 299), this checking must be the subject of a mention in the judgement (Civ. 1st, June 6, 2001, Bull. n° 165), but if such a mention exists, it is taken until inscription of forgery (Civ. 1st, November 7, 2001, husband Dubois C CRCAM of the Center, to appear with the Bulletin)
|
 |
• Credit consumption
• Rules concerning cash
The passage of the franc to the euro is still in all the memories. Some will need a little time to feel completely at ease with the new currency.
The replacement of the franc by the euro at the beginning of 2002 did not change the rules which apply in France to the circulation of cash that one still calls fiduciary currency.
On the other hand, since January 1, 2002, the parts and the tickets in euros which circulate in France are usable as well in the other countries of the euro area and in the same way, the foreigners who come to France can use there the parts and tickets with which they arrived.
The tickets in euros are 7 (5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500€). They are identical whatever their country of origin.
Many signs of safety were laid out on the new tickets to dissuade the forgers. The principal ones are the following:
- tickets of 5, 10 and 20€: make in filigree, wire of safety, holographic magnetic band, iridescent band.
- tickets of 50, 100, holographic, ink with changing color.
The parts are 8 (1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 centimes, 1 and 2 euros). They comprise a face common to all the countries of the euro area, on which the value of the part is registered in a quite visible way. The drawing appearing in the reverse of the part depends on the country where it was manufactured. As these parts are valid in all Europe, they gradually will mix
|
|
 procedural aspects of the treatment of the over-indebtedness
We will restrict ourselves here to mention two recurring questions in the appeals whose 1st Room is seized: the orality of the procedure, and the respect of contradiction.
The difficulties come from the telescoping of the law of 1989, in which the procedure was oral and sometimes even gracious, with the law of February 8, 1995, which, while seeking to reduce the task of the judges of the over-indebtedness, set up a mixed procedure, to the image of that which is held in front of the judge of the execution.
The Court of appeal endeavoured to solve them, by founding some guiding principles in a procedure hardly outlined by the statutory texts.
With this intention, it distinguished two phases in the legal process: the phase of instruction of the file, and the phase of decision itself.
This final stage does not pose problem because it is strictly regulated: the procedure is contentious, and oral, the judge must convene the parts with the audience, it can however authorize them to present written observations, under the conditions fixed by articles 13 and 14 of the decree of July 31, 1992.
The phase of instruction is more problematic, it starts with the admissibility of the request and is completed with the attribution of the executory force to measurements recommended.
Put aside the suspension of the ways of execution, which obeys the procedure of the ordinances on request, all the recourse exerted during this phase (that it is against the decision of admissibility of the request or against the state of the credits established by the commission) are subjected to a procedure is mixed, or rather alternative.
The texts indicate that the judge rules after having asked or having collected for the observations of the parts.
The 1st Room in deduced that an option opened to the judge:
1° is it causes an audience, and it follows, then, the rules of the oral procedure: the parts which do not arise cannot present written observations, if they present some, the judge cannot hold account of it
2° is it rules without debate, and it must ask the parts to present their observations written within a time that it specify (Civ. 1st, July 4, 2000, Bull. n° 206)
This written procedure does not exempt it obviously to respect the principle of contradiction by checking that the parts communicated their written observations before it rules (Civ. 1st, November 21, 2000, Bull. n° 299), this checking must be the subject of a mention in the judgement (Civ. 1st, June 6, 2001, Bull. n° 165), but if such a mention exists, it is taken until inscription of forgery (Civ. 1st, November 7, 2001, husband Dubois C CRCAM of the Center, to appear with the Bulletin)
Conclusion for the treatment of the over-indebtedness
Undoubtedly it is too early to draw up a real assessment of the application of the law of July 29, 1998. However, on the hour close to a transfer of competence towards the 2nd Civil court, a recall of the current device and jurisprudence worked out during more than ten years were essential.
He teaches that, in spite of the reserves of the legislator to found a system of civil bankruptcy, the over-indebtedness of the private individuals is affirmed more and more like a collective procedure in the event of insolvency, carrying out delicate balance between protection and responsibility for surendetté.
He also teaches that the 1st Civil court is, right from the start, registered in an ambitious logic, by conferring on the over-indebtedness a range as broad as possible, one of his last contributions in this field will have been to extend the field of application of the law on the over-indebtedness beyond the national borders, by including there the foreign credits contracted by a French debtor, residing in France (Civ. 1st, July 10, 2001, Bull. n° 210)
And if it were necessary to emit a regret to conclude this study, it would be that the lawful capacity did not benefit from the basic reform operated by the law from 1998 to standardize the applicable procedure rules in front of the jurisdictions of the over-indebtedness, sources of irritating difficulties for the courts dealing with the substance of a case, and of too many appeals.
The return to a purely oral procedure, would have as a disadvantage of still weighing down the task of the Clerc's Offices, and that of the judges, but would have the immense advantage of discharging from the debtors, morally and financially weakened, of the instruction of their own file.
|
|
|
|
Credit for a trade
|
|
|
|
Home • Video • Forum • Gallery • Partners
