• Facts
On November 14, 2016, the Collectivité of Saint-Martin was ordered by the execution judge to pay 243 euros to the E consorts in respect of the liquidation of a fine ordered by judgment three years earlier. On December 000, 19, the COM appealed against this judgment.
In October 2017, the case was struck off by the pre-trial advisor "because of the non-execution of the decision". The COM will then want to cancel this delisting and wins its case in September 2019.
• The case in 2020
But the pre-trial advisor and the E consorts are firmly in their position. In July 2020, the pre-trial advisor therefore once again noted the expiry of the proceedings; the case is again struck out by order. The COM defers it two weeks later.
She maintains that she did ask that the sum due to the E consorts be paid to them. She claims to have issued a payment mandate on March 18, 2019 for an amount of 244 euros, that this mandate was registered with the CARPA of Martinique on March 500 of the same year. On the other hand, it refuses to bear the responsibility for the late sending of the check, the one having in fact been received by the E consorts by registered letter on October 26, 8. The COM attributes this delay of the transfer to "the failure of CARPA in the 'establishment of the check letter'.
In new conclusions tabled in October 2020, the E consorts reiterate their position.
• The decision of the court of appeal
The case is still examined by the Court of Appeal of Basse Terre on November 9. At this hearing, the court of appeal was not to confirm or not the judgment according to which the COM had to pay 243 euros to the E consorts, but to rule on the order of the pre-trial adviser indicating the cancellation of the file.
The court did not note in the documents provided that the COM had justified that "the payment of the sum was indeed made by the public accountant within a reasonable time".
"However, to interrupt the expiration, characterized by an absence of due diligence for 2 years, the act performed must demonstrate the unequivocal will of the appellant (here the COM, editor's note) to execute and advance the case, the simple conclusions for the purposes of restoration or the simple steps taken by a party, not being of this nature. The first judge rightly considered that, for lack of proof within the two-year period, of a real desire to execute the sentence pronounced against her, the enlisted body has expired. From then on, the order referred will be confirmed in all its provisions, ”said the Court of Appeal in its decision rendered on December 7. (soualigapost.com)
6,325 total views
No comments