Supreme Court of Appeal
Civil Division 3

Public hearing on March 6, 2002 Cassation partial


Appeal No.: 99-20637
titled Unreleased Chairman: Mr. WEBER

FRENCH REPUBLIC
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIVIL DIVISION, made the following ruling:

On appeal by the French construction group company, limited liability company, formerly known as Mistral work, which is based in ZA Pile, 13760 Saint-Cannat,

to quash a decision of 24 June 1999 by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (3rd Civil Chamber), for:

1 / the condominium residence Le Verger, Golfe Juan, with its headquarters town of Vallauris, the Gazelle Avenue, 06220 Golfe Juan,

2 / by Jacques Saez, designated as agent for ad hoc to represent SCI Le Verger, remaining 2, avenue Marceau, 75008 Paris,

3 / company Nice tight, headquartered 34, boulevard Carnot, 06000 Nice,

4 / Technic Company work, which is based industrial zone of the Pre Catelan, 06410 Biot,

5 / by Michel Arnaud, taken in his capacity as liquidator of the company Technic sealing work, remaining 2, avenue Aristide Briand, 06600 Antibes,

6 / company SOCOM, headquartered 19 Avenue Auguste Renoir, 06800 Cagnes-sur-Mer,

7 / company Tec Mediterranean, limited liability company, whose head is 32, avenue Saint-Barthelemy, 06000 Nice,

8 / by Pierre Donnet, remaining 6, avenue de l’Hôpital, 06220 Vallauris,

9 / business plumbing heating “Sanit Casino”, whose headquarters are 4, avenue du Casino, 06220 Golfe Juan,

10 / Mr. Isidore Compagnoni, remaining 52/54, route of penetration, Maramu, 06800 Cagnes-sur-Mer,

11 / Mr. George Peltier, in his capacity as court-appointed liquidator, remaining 3, rue de Massingy, 06000 Nice,

12 / company Polycom Mediterranean, headquartered 70, route de Grenoble, 06000 Nice,

13 / the insurance company Drouot, whose headquarters are 1, place Victorien Sardou, 78161 Marly-le-Roi, the rights of which is the company Axa insurance

14 / Socotec company, headquartered 33, avenue du Maine, Tour Maine Montparnasse, 75015 Paris,

defendants to appeal;

Axa insurance company formed by a brief filed in the office July 12, 2000, caused an appeal;

Mr. Donnet formed by a brief filed in the office July 21, 2000, caused an appeal;

The French construction group company, the plaintiff in the main appeal, relies in support of its application, two grounds of appeal annexed to this Order;

Axa Insurance Company, the plaintiff in appeal caused, invokes in support of its application, a unique way of appeal annexed to this Order;

Mr. Donnet, caused plaintiff to appeal, relies in support of its application, a unique way of appeal annexed to this Order;

THE COURT, in the public hearing on January 29, 2002, which were present: Weber, President, Fossaert-Sabatier, Commissioner of the rapporteur, Ms Fossereau, MM. Way, Villien, Cachelot, Martin, Mrs. Lardet, Gabet, counselors, Ms. Boulanger, Nesi, M. Jacques, counselors referendum, Mr. Guerin, General Counsel, Ms. Berdeaux, Clerk of room;

On the report of Ms. Fossaert-Sabatier, Commissioner of the observations of SCP and Piwnica Molinié, lawyer of Groupe French construction, Me Balat, lawyer condominium residence Le Verger, Golfe Juan, the SCP Masse-Dessen, George and Thouvenin, counsel for Mr. Donnet, Me Odent, counsel for the company Nice tight, CPS and Rouvière Boutet, counsel for the company Axa Insurance, in law to the insurance company Drouot, the conclusions of M. Guerin, General Counsel, and after deliberating in accordance with law;

The first main ground of appeal, the following appended:

Whereas, having held that sovereign disorders cracking of facades, affecting the heavy work, were such as to make buildings unfit for use and were not apparent upon receipt, the Court of Appeal, which said findings, is legally justified its decision;

The second main ground of appeal, the following appended:

Whereas, having held that the company Mistral was in pursuance of its market, store or transplant trees, or, if not possible, notify the Owner, it had not, and was not justified in a case of force majeure and in particular the occurrence of frost before receipt of the property, the Court of Appeal, who responded to the findings, a legally justified its decision to this head;

But the single plea in law caused the company Axa Insurance:

Having regard to Article 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure;

Whereas, according to the judgment (Aix-en-Provence, June 24, 1999) that the real estate company Orchards (SCI), provided by the company Groupe Drouot rights which is the Axa insurance company, had built a building for residential use under the project management of M. Donnet, architect, the company Mistral work (Mistral) became French construction group, as all trades contractor, upon receipt, the union of co-owners of the residence Le Verger has assigned the SCI and the manufacturers for repair disorders and the damage caused by the disappearance of orange which the building permit provided for the conservation, or failing that, the replacement;

Whereas in condemning the company Groupe Drouot, with the SCI, to compensate owners for damage related to the disappearance of trees, stopping notes that Article 6 of the general conditions of the liability policy provides that the guarantee promoter s’ applied to the financial consequences of liability falling upon the insured because of damages caused to third parties directly qu’entraînent faults errors of fact or law, oversights, omissions, inaccuracies or omissions, breach of procedures or deadlines imposed by the law or regulation, that these facts come from himself or his servants, provided they are produced in the acts of his profession promoter;

And that acting without responding to the findings of the insurance company arguing that the police did not guarantee the financial consequences of the liability of the insured “because of the nonconformity of the structure with the design specifications or the document attached to the sales contract or preliminary contract, “the court of appeal did not meet the requirements of this text;

And the unique way the appeal brought by Mr. Donnet:Having regard to Article 1147 of the Civil Code;

Whereas in condemning Mr. Donnet to ensure the SCI of the conviction to repair the damage arose from the disappearance of the orange stop holds that Pierre Donnet, who had been on a mission of project management involving the study and the development of the project and the management, supervision and approval of work, could ignore the less the loss of 156 trees and the violation of the building permit he had sold the land to the SCI, that it has engaged its contractual liability for failing to draw attention to this subject, particularly when receiving;

That while acting as an obligation to counsel does not apply to facts which are known to all , the Court of Appeal violated the text referred to above;

FOR THESE REASONS:

Quashed, but only in that it ordered the company Drouot Group with the SCI, to pay the condominium residence Le Verger the sum of 1,411,020 francs taxes, the decision of June 24, 1999, between the parties, the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence; shall, therefore, as to what the cause and the parties in the state they were before the judgment and to be granted, the refers to the Court of Appeal of Montpellier;

 

 

Society condemns French construction group at the expense of appeals; 


 

Having regard to Article 700 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, rejected the demands of co-owners of the residence Le Verger, Golfe Juan, Nice tight company and Mr. Donnet; 

 

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 as a result of the partially broken off; 

 

Well done and tried by the Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the President in a public hearing on 6 March two thousand and two. 



Contested decision: Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence (3rd Civil Chamber) 1999-06-24
titrations and abstracts (The appeal induced)
 

Posted on ខែមករា 11, 2012, in យុត្តិសាស្រ្ត. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on case 53.

ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​ត្រូវបានបិទ។

%d bloggers like this: