Article 72: Serving motions and statements

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3091/2524 (1981)

   Section 174 concerns the abandonment of a claim, not the abandonment of a motion to withdraw a claim; withdrawal is governed by section 175. There is therefore no legal support for treating a plaintiff who has not served a copy of his motion to withdraw before the pre-trial date as having abandoned it.

   The defendant argued that because the plaintiff had not served the copy of his motion to withdraw the claim before the pre-trial date, he should be treated as having abandoned the motion and as not wishing to withdraw. The Supreme Court held that section 174 concerns the abandonment of a claim and not of a motion to withdraw, that withdrawal is governed by section 175, and that the plaintiff had duly moved to withdraw and the trial court had allowed it after hearing the defendant's objection. There was no legal support for the defendant's argument.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 627/2502 (1959)

   A party's failure to serve on the opponent a copy of a statement naming additional witnesses does not by itself make the evidence inadmissible under Section 72, where the filing of an additional witness list is governed by and complies with Section 88.

   The defendant argued that the plaintiff's additional witness statement, served without a copy to the defendant, was not admissible under Section 72. The court held that under Section 88 paragraph two, as amended, a party need only file the additional witness list before the close of evidence of the party who bears the burden of proof first, so the plaintiff's additional witness reference did not offend the law.

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