Cass. Civ. 2nd, 31 March 2022, n° 20-19.467, Société ALOÏS / Société JBS
The notification of judicial acts abroad is a crucial step in international proceedings, which must be carried out in compliance with international conventions or, in their absence, with the rules of international custom.
In the case submitted to the Court of cassation, the company JBS had proceeded with the notification of a summons to the company ALOÏS, established in a foreign country, through diplomatic channels.
The company ALOÏS challenged the regularity of this notification, claiming that it had not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the applicable international convention.
The Court of appeal of Paris rejected the challenge of the company ALOÏS, considering that the notification had been carried out regularly.
The company ALOÏS then formed an appeal in cassation.
It notably invoked that the notification had not been carried out in compliance with the provisions of the applicable international convention, which constituted a substantial irregularity.
The Court of cassation, in its decision of 31 March 2022, rejects the appeal of the company ALOÏS.
It states: “The notification of judicial acts through diplomatic channels, when it is provided for by an international convention, must be carried out in accordance with the forms and conditions prescribed by this convention.”
However, it adds: “The non-observance of the formalities prescribed by the convention does not necessarily entail the nullity of the notification, if it is established that the act has reached the addressee in time and that his rights of defense have been respected.”
This decision is interesting because it confirms that the regularity of the notification of judicial acts is not an end in itself, but a means to ensure the respect of the rights of defense.
Even if a formality prescribed by an international convention has not been respected, the notification can be considered regular if it has fulfilled its purpose, which is to inform the addressee of the existence of the proceeding and to allow him to defend himself.
This jurisprudence is a pragmatic approach to the notification of judicial acts and confirms that the judge must always take into account the principle of the rights of defense in the evaluation of the regularity of procedural acts.