Such is the financial penalty imposed recently by the local court of Vienna against SFR and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal Grenoble. In this case, by court order dated December 20, 2007, the local court of Vienna had ordered the company Neuf Cegetel (SFR now become) to restore phone service and Internet access supported by a particular . The judge ordered
this recovery within eight days after the notification of cases and this under penalty of 100 euros per day of delay. On April 25, 2008, the individual decides to assign Neuf Cegetel before the local court of Vienna to see the penalty be liquidated.
By decision dated January 12, 2009, the local court was hearing a plea of incompetence by the Neuf Cegetel and therefore referred the consideration of this objection before the District Court of Vienna. Neuf Cegetel had considered that only the High Court could rule on the liquidation of the penalty.
By decision dated June 19, 2009, the District Court of Vienna declared the local court of Vienna jurisdiction of this dispute. He thus rejected the plea of incompetence and said that the decision was made so as contradictory and subject to appeal. On May 28, 2010, SFR decided to form a "contradiction" against the ruling saying that only the High Court of Vienna could hear the case. 8 November 2010, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal of Grenoble since no remedy is opened against the ruling on the court has jurisdiction.
The consequence of this rejection for SFR was not neutral. Indeed, in the meantime, J. proximity of Vienna had rendered its decision dated April 26, 2010 liquidating the penalty to the tune of 20,000 euros . There is therefore no doubt that the implementation of the measure ordered by the judge in 2007 has probably not been very fast ....
Source: CA Grenoble, 08/11/2010, SFR v. Christopher X (unpublished)
Author: Benoit Tabaka - http://tabaka.blogspot.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment