Background
M. [D] [J] brought cassation appeal No. G 26-12.968 against a judgment delivered at last instance on 11 March 2026 by the Melun Judicial Tribunal, sitting in political-election litigation. The respondents were M. [T] [A] and the Prefect of Seine-et-Marne, acting in his official capacity. The case concerned M. [J]’s attempt to have M. [A] removed from the electoral list of the commune identified as [Locality 1]. M. [A]’s registration had been ordered by a judgment of that tribunal dated 25 February 2026.
The Melun tribunal declared M. [J]’s recourse inadmissible. M. [J] argued that a third-party voter could ask the judicial tribunal to remove an elector who had been improperly registered pursuant to a tribunal decision to which that voter had not been a party. He contended that the tribunal had misapplied Article L. 20 of the Electoral Code by treating that provision as confined to the work of the supervisory commission, together with Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Second Civil Chamber heard the case in public on 23 September 2026. The file had been communicated to the Prosecutor General. The court considered the report of Ms. Brouzes, reporting judge, submissions by SAS Buk Lament-Robillot for M. [J], M. [A]’s written and oral observations, and the opinion of First Advocate General Mr. Straudo. Ms. Martinel presided. The judgment was numbered 1096 FS-B and marked “Rejection.”
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the cassation appeal. Article L. 20(I) of the Electoral Code allows any voter registered on a commune’s electoral list to seek before the judicial tribunal the registration or removal of an omitted or improperly registered elector, or to challenge a decision registering or removing an elector. The state’s departmental representative has the same right. The recourse must be brought within seven days of publication of the electoral list, and a cassation appeal against the tribunal’s decision may be brought within ten days of its notification.
Article 609 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits any party with an interest to appeal in cassation, even if the unfavorable provision does not benefit that party’s opponent. The court nevertheless drew from the applicable rules that no one may appeal in cassation against a decision to which that person was not a party, and that electoral matters are no exception. It cited Second Civil Chamber, 8 March 1978, appeal No. 78-60.102, published.
Accordingly, a third-party voter who was not a party to the proceedings cannot appeal in cassation against a tribunal judgment addressing the claim of a person alleging omission from the communal electoral list through a purely material error or removal in breach of Article L. 18 of the Electoral Code. The court cited Second Civil Chamber, 27 January 2022, appeal No. 21-60.129, published. It stated that cassation appeals against judgments registering or removing an elector may be brought only by persons who were parties to the proceedings and, in every case, by the state’s departmental representative. That representative’s ability to appeal enables Court of Cassation review when registration was ordered at the elector’s request.
The court then addressed the distinct tribunal-level recourse. Article L. 20(I) gives a third-party voter a recourse whose sole object is to challenge a registration or removal decision taken by the supervisory commission provided for in Article L. 18. A third-party voter therefore cannot ask the judicial tribunal to remove an elector registered pursuant to a tribunal decision to which that voter was not a party. This limitation does not violate Article 13 combined with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the third-party voter has no private right to assert. The court consequently held that the ground of appeal was unfounded.
M. [A] also sought damages for an abusive appeal. Article 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits an unsuccessful or inadmissible appellant whose recourse is judged abusive to be ordered to pay a civil fine of up to €10,000 and, within the same limit, compensation to the respondent. Finding no abuse of rights established, the court rejected M. [A]’s damages request. It also rejected the request made under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A third-party voter who was not a party to tribunal proceedings cannot bring a cassation appeal against the resulting electoral-registration judgment.
- Persons who were parties may appeal, and the state’s departmental representative may do so in every case.
- Article L. 20(I)’s third-party recourse challenges supervisory-commission decisions, not registrations ordered by a judicial tribunal.
- The appeal and M. [A]’s abusive-appeal damages request were rejected; no abuse of rights was established, and the Article 700 request was also rejected.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes standing to challenge electoral-list decisions before the tribunal from standing to pursue cassation review. A voter’s general interest in the accuracy of a communal electoral list does not permit that nonparty voter to seek removal of someone registered by tribunal judgment or to appeal that judgment in cassation.
The availability of an appeal by the state’s departmental representative supplies the identified route for Court of Cassation oversight when registration was ordered at the elector’s request. The Convention ruling is tied to the absence of a private right belonging to the third-party voter, while the damages ruling reflects the court’s finding that no abuse was established in this case.