Article 19: Ordering parties to appear in person

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 102/2507 (1964)

   A defendant's advocate ordered to attend court in person is not a party within the meaning of section 19, so his failure to attend cannot be contempt under section 31(5) read with section 19. He may nonetheless be punished for contempt on other grounds where the evidence shows he instigated his client to evade the court's writs.

   The defendant's advocate was accused of advising the defendant not to attend court and of encouraging him to avoid the court's writs, and the trial court ordered the advocate to attend every inquiry hearing in person. The Supreme Court held that in that position the advocate was not a party within section 19, so his non-attendance was not contempt under section 31(5) read with section 19. But the court may punish contempt on evidence from any source, and since the advocate stayed away without explaining himself, showing that he deliberately led no evidence and evaded the proceedings, the trial court's handling was proper; on the evidence that he had instigated his client to evade the court's writs he was guilty of contempt.

2. Arrêt n° 248/2524 de la Cour suprême (1981)

   Sections 19 and 20 aim to give the court power to try to bring the parties to an agreement or compromise on the dispute, and a judge acting to reduce the parties' points of conflict toward settlement is performing that lawful conciliation function.

   In a prosecution alleging a judge had performed his duties improperly during conciliation, the court explained that Sections 19 and 20 are intended to empower the court to try to bring the parties to an agreement or compromise. A judge who seeks to narrow the parties' disagreements toward a settlement is properly carrying out that conciliation role.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.