2012-268 QPC Social action and families code S. L. 224-8 the: 17/07/2012

2012-268 QPC

Social action and families code

S. L. 224-8 the: 17/07/2012

Court of cassation

Civil Division 1

Public hearing on June 6, 2012

Appeal No.: 11-27071

Published in the bulletin

Incident QPC - reference to the cc

Mr. Charruault (Chairman), president

SCP Delvolve, SCP Rocheteau, and Uzan-Sarano, lawyer (s)

FRENCH REPUBLIC

ON BEHALF OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

THE Court of CASSATION, first Civil Chamber, delivered the following judgment:

Whereas on the occasion of the appeal brought against the judgment delivered on 2 December 2010, by the Court of appeal of Versailles, Ms. X..., by special and distinct memory request to refer to the Constitutional Council the question of constitutionality to try that:

Article l. 224 - 8 of the code of social action and families, in what he done run the period of thirty days against the order of admission as a ward of the State from the date of the Decree of the president of the general Council, without providing the advertising of this order, is contrary to the constitutional principle guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy before a court and article 16 of the declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen;

Whereas the impugned provision is applicable to the case, the appeal by Ms. X... against admission of child Austino X... as a ward of the State having been declared inadmissible, as late, on the basis of this text;

That it has not already been declared compliance with the Constitution in the grounds and the device of a decision of the Constitutional Council;

And whereas the question presents a serious nature in that it argues that in determining the starting point of the time limit for appeal against the order of admission of a child as a ward of the State at the date of adoption of this order, that provision has effect, in the absence of notification or publication, to deprive persons with quality to the possibility of their appeal in a timely manner;

From which it follows that there be referred to the Constitutional Council;

FOR THESE REASONS:

REFERS to the Constitutional Council the priority issue of constitutionality;

Thus did and tried by the Court of cassation, first Civil Chamber, and pronounced by the president in his public hearing on June 6, two thousand twelve. Publication:

Contested decision: Court of appeal of Versailles on 2 December 2010