Aller au contenu principal
The Inadmissibility of Pleadings
Droit Immobilier

The Inadmissibility of Pleadings

📅 Decision of 24 September 2015⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 27 views📖 2 min read

The inadmissibility of a company's appeal pleadings that mention a fictitious registered office is not conditional upon showing a grievance. Consequently, a court of appeal violates Articles 960 and 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure when, in order to hold that there was no need to declare itself irregularly seized of a company's written submissions, it finds that the opposing party fails to prove that the irregularity consisting in the failure to indicate, in that company's written submissions, its actual registered office, causes it a grievance.

Reference decision: cc • No. 14-23.169 • 2015-09-24 • View the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your property law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

The inadmissibility of a company's appeal pleadings that mention a fictitious registered office is not conditional upon showing a grievance. Consequently, a court of appeal violates Articles 960 and 961 of the Code of Civil Procedure when, in order to hold that there was no need to declare itself irregularly seized of a company's written submissions, it finds that the opposing party fails to prove that the irregularity consisting in the failure to indicate, in that company's written submissions, its actual registered office, causes it a grievance.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Scrupulously respect the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, instruments, letters)
  • Plan ahead: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Legal information

  • Number: 14-23.169
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 24 September 2015

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier

Practical use cases

1

Developer's appeal dismissed over wrong company address

A small property development company (SCI Rhône Immo) in Lyon loses a €120,000 construction defect case and appeals, but its lawyer files submissions listing the company’s old registered office in Villeurbanne, even though it moved to central Lyon a year earlier. The opposing party immediately objects.

Practical application:

Under this case law, a court must reject appeal submissions if they show a fictitious registered office (the company's official legal address), even without proof of harm to the other side. As a company, always update your registered office with the trade register and your lawyer before any appeal. If you are the other party, check the company's entry on Infogreffe immediately; find an incorrect address, and formally ask the court to declare the submissions inadmissible.

2

Restaurant owner blocks landlord's appeal over fake address

A restaurant owner in Marseille faces eviction by her landlord, a property investment company. She wins at first instance, but the landlord appeals. The tenant discovers the appeal submissions list a Paris registered office the company left two years ago, now using a virtual address.

Practical application:

The court can strike out the landlord's submissions on its own motion, requiring no grievance from the tenant. Scrutinise the opposing party's submissions for an outdated registered office; if found, promptly raise the procedural irregularity under Article 961. This could end the appeal. As a landlord, ensure your registered office is always correct on court documents to avoid losing your case on a technicality.

3

Co-owners win when builder uses old address on appeal

A co-ownership association in Bordeaux (syndicat de copropriété) obtains an €80,000 award against a construction company for defective renovations. The company appeals, but its submissions list an old registered office that changed after the trial—revealed when the co-owners' lawyer checks the company registration online.

Practical application:

The appeal court must reject the builder's submissions as irregular, without needing to show prejudice. Co-owners should always verify the opponent's company details via free services like Societe.com. If the registered office is outdated, object in writing before the hearing, citing this judgment. Companies appealing must double-check that every submission bears the exact, current registered office from the trade register.

Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide