THE COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIVIL DIVISION.

February 3, 1999. Decision No. 362. Cassation.

Appeal No. 96-11946.

CIVIL BULLETIN – BULLETIN – REPORT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

The appeal brought by Ms Brigitte Varcin, resident 5, rue Picot, 75016 Paris, to quash a decision of 20 November 1995 by the Court of Appeal of Paris (the second room, section A), in favor of Mr. Christian, Claude Hini, remaining 53 Avenue Foch, 75016 Paris, defendant in the appeal;

The plaintiff relies in support of its appeal, the sole means of appeal annexed to this Order;

THE COURT, in the public hearing on January 13, 1999, which were present: Mr. Lemontey, president, Savatier, Commissioner of the rapporteur, Mr Renard-Payen, Mme Delaroche, M. Ancel, Mrs. Mark, MM. Aubert, Durieux, Cottin, Bouscharain, Ms. Benas, MM. Guerin, Sempere, Bargue, counselors, Ms. Bignon, Verdun, Catry, counselors referendum, Mr. Roehrich, General Counsel, Ms. Collet, Clerk of the Chamber;

The unique way:

Having regard to Articles 1131 and 1133 of the Civil Code;

Considering that is not immoral because of the liberality which the author intends to maintain the adulterous relationship he has with the recipient;

Whereas October 26, 1989, Roger Hini died leaving his estate to his wife and Mr. Christian Hini he had adopted, as authentic will of March 17, 1989, he, on the one hand, removed all donations between husband and disinherited his wife, and on the other hand, Ms. Varcin bestowed a sum of 500,000 francs; Hini Mr. Christian argued that because of this provision was contrary to morality;

Whereas for the invalidity of the donation granted to Ms. Varcin, the Court of Appeal held that the testamentary disposition that had been taken to prosecute and maintain liaison still very new;

What the Court of Appeal violated the above documents;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Quashed, in all its provisions, the decision of November 20, 1995, 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 to the Court of Appeal of Paris, a differently constituted;

Condemns Mr Hini expense;

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the request of Mr. Hini;

Said that the audit of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the above will be sent to be transcribed in the margin or in the wake of the Cassis.

On the report of Mr. Savatier, Commissioner of the observations of Mr. Guinard, counsel for Ms. Varcin, CPS Vier and Barthelemy, lawyer for Mr. Hini, the conclusions of Mr. Roehrich, General Counsel, and after deliberating accordance with the law, Mr. President Lemontey.

Advertisements

Posted on ខែមករា 10, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. បាន​បិទ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ នៅ case 25.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បិទ។

%d bloggers like this: