NEED TO QUESTION THE PRINCIPLE OF NON RETROATIVITE CIVIL LAW EVEN IF NEW PROVISIONS "fairer"?
"The law provides only for the future: it has no retroactive effect."
The sacrosanct principle of non-retroactivity of laws, curtly told by Article 2 of the Civil Code, which is public, must necessarily be applied by judges, regardless of the "injustice "Or the unfairness of the decision they will be asked to make in a particular case where a new law occurred during the procedure, which would have enabled them to make a decision" more fair ".
Admittedly, this principle has no constitutional value in law enforcement (see Constitutional Council 11/7/1997) and, in civil, does not bind the Legislature (see Court of Cassation, 1st Room 06/20/2000) which may give the text a retroactive application provided unequivocal intention appears (see Court of Appeal Paris 21.05.1971).
But in the absence of unequivocal statement of retroactivity of civil law, judges are bound by the laws in force at the facts in dispute submitted to them.
This situation of our positive law, like many other areas, deserves to be revisited and reviewed, as have been, after several decades, other sacrosanct principles such as that autonomy of the will or of consensus. 
The consumer law is contained in this respect, a real spearhead likely to pierce the shell of the non-retroactivity, originally founded on the notion that, by law the contract between the parties and they are supposed to sound mind and not be influenced, there could be no question of questioning by a law, which would have been "freely" consented. Gradually, this "new right" comes to introduce the idea, and sometimes much more, to be pursued, particularly contracts and independently of the traditional vices of consent (mistake, violence, fraud) the state of "dominance" of one of the protagonists (usually the "professional") or dependence the other (usually the "consumer"), whether the balance of the contract has been respected, both in its underwriting conditions in the cancellation option open or not "particular". Many court decisions are made every day, canceling some as unfair clauses in contracts for internet service providers (ISP) or insurance contracts, but there are still many gray areas not covered by our laws successive national, mostly incomplete, overlapping each other to fix our old law, otherwise known to disappear gradually little in view of the primacy of Community rules or principles affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which, in view of their Anglo-Saxon terminology, tend towards justice less text and more pragmatic (eg "reasonable time" in criminal law). An example: April 2, 2009, the first Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Appeal No. 08-11231), acting in a legal dispute between a committee of business to a company providing services, broke and quashed a decision of a judge who had seen near that without having informed the other contracting party clearly on the right of non-automatic renewal of the contract, the service company could not rely on an automatic renewal thereof.
J. proximity was at its decision, ahead of its time.
Indeed, his sentence was quashed on the grounds that he had been made while Article L. 136-1 of the Consumer Code as drafted by the Law of 28 January 2005 did not enjoy while in the "consumer" that is to say, only natural persons, that was not the committee business, despite the fact that this article was amended on January 3, 2008 (longer than one year before the ruling of the Supreme Court) by the law called "Chatel Act II" which has extended the application of this section "non-professionals."
Indeed, at the date of the "facts" (and not the decision), the former section L. 136-1, which alone could be applied, and corporations were not entitled to receive it, they were devoid of any profit made up of non-professional or not.
is measured by all the inanity of such a situation, just right, in fact unfair. From
there arises the question: should we question the principle of non retroactivity of civil laws? Or: should we give the courts a discretion to be ahead, compared to the delays of the law?
One can clearly see the heart of the debate: the legislature makes the law, the judge must apply it without qualms, in any case where it is of public order, as is the case in case.
Among the major projects including open justice and simplification of the law, there is of it, like others, that are not listed on the agenda but would well need to be.
Because in our current system, it was always wrong to be right too soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment