Est de nature à entraîner la nullité

Application pratique:

Under this 1998 Cour de cassation ruling, only the investigating judge of the place where the custody measure is actually carried out (here, Lyon) has jurisdiction to extend the garde à vue, not the judge who issued the original mandate in Paris. If the extension was ordered by the wrong judge, the defence should raise a nullity plea against the custody extension and any evidence or statements obtained during the unlawfully extended period. A lawyer should immediately check the dates, locations and the identity of the judge who signed the extension order. Acting quickly matters because nullity pleas in criminal procedure must generally be raised before the investigating judge rules on the merits.

Application pratique:

This case law makes clear that the power to extend custody belongs to the judge of the place of execution, i.e. the Marseille court in this scenario, not the issuing Bordeaux judge. A real estate lawyer advising the co-owner should verify which court actually ordered the extension and, if it was Bordeaux, file a motion to annul the custody act and any related interrogation records. This procedural defect can have a knock-on effect on administrative proceedings for illegal subdivision if the criminal evidence feeds into a civil or administrative sanction. Request certified copies of the rogatory commission and extension order as a first step.

Application pratique:

根据1998年法国最高法院（Cour de cassation）这一判例，只有拘留措施实际执行地（本案中为南特）的侦查法官才有权决定延长拘留期限，而非发出委托书的图卢兹法官。律师应立即核实延长决定的签署法官及地点，若确认由图卢兹法官违规签署，应及时向预审法官提出程序无效申请，要求撤销该延长决定及其后取得的询问记录。这一程序瑕疵可能影响后续与该房产交易相关的民事或行政诉讼中证据的可采性。建议尽快索取委托书及延长拘留决定书的正式副本以核实细节。