|Public hearing on May 3, 1995
Appeal No.: 93-12256
Published in the Newsletter Chair: Mr. Bézard. Rapporteur: Mr. Dumas. Attorney General: Mr Raynaud. Counsel: Mr. Boulle.
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
The first plea:
Having regard to Articles 1907, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code and 4 of the Act of December 28, 1966;
Whereas, as the Court criticized that, July 31, 1989, Credit Commercial de France (CCF) has closed the current account in his books, since September 23, 1981, on behalf of Mr. Amouyal, he then assigned it to pay the outstanding balance of this account, that the defendant did not appear at trial or on appeal;
Whereas, in deciding that the claim of the CCF “shall be the outstanding balance due account of all debit transactions other than premiums and interest, plus interest at the legal rate on the amounts involved in these operations flow”, the Judge approves first stop, before which Mr. Amouyal did not appear to have raised the statutory plea that the RTC could not justify a written stipulation of the rate of interest demanded;
Expected that by thus determining, while the public policy provisions of Article 4 of the Act of December 28, 1966 was issued solely in the interest of the borrower, their ignorance is punishable by disqualification on the clause provision of the contractual interest, which results in particular, the lack of validity of such a clause could be invoked against the CCF at the request of Mr. Amouyal, the Court of Appeal violated the texts referred to above;
FOR THESE REASONS, and without any need to rule on the second ground:
Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of June 19, 1992, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Paris shall, therefore, the cause and the parties in the state they were before said stop, and to be granted, the returns before the Court of Appeal of Orleans.
Publication: Bulletin No. IV 1995 p. 128 115
DALLOZ, 1997-03-06, No. 10, p. 124, note F. EUDI.
Impugned Decision: Court of Appeal of Paris, 1992-06-19 precedent: A CLOSER: Commercial Division, 1994-03-29, Bulletin 1994, IV, No. 134, p. 104 (Supreme), and the case cited.