Background
On January 26, 2010, M. [W] [L] slapped his colleague, Mme [T] [F]. In a final judgment, a police court found him guilty of a petty offense of violence, fined him €350, and reserved its decision on the civil claims.
After several medical examinations, the correctional court ordered M. [L] on February 8, 2021, to pay Mme [F] €17,400 in damages. Both parties appealed. On May 26, 2025, the Colmar Court of Appeal increased the amounts recoverable, including €90 for healthcare expenses, €42,680 for third-party assistance, and €271,448.93 for future lost professional earnings, from which a pension of €243,721.74 was to be deducted. It ordered M. [L] to pay Mme [F] €138,922.07, subject to deductions for interim payments, and to reimburse the Caisse des dépôts et consignations €243,721.74.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation upheld the €90 healthcare-expense award. Although the Court of Appeal incorrectly classified the expense as a current healthcare cost, the batteries for Mme [F]’s hearing aids were purchased in July 2021, after both her medical condition had stabilized and the trial court had ruled. Because the loss arose after the first-instance judgment, compensation for it could properly be requested for the first time on appeal.
The Court partially vacated the judgment on two other heads of loss. Under Article 515, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a civil claimant may not introduce a new claim on appeal. Mme [F] had made no first-instance claim for third-party assistance during the period from January 26, 2010, to April 26, 2017, so the appellate court could not admit that claim merely because earlier expert examinations had not addressed it. The appellate court also failed to justify its award for future lost professional earnings: the two losses identified in its reasoning—€29,332.56 for the elapsed period and €124,786.14 for the future period—totaled €154,118.70, not €271,448.93.
Key Takeaways
- A civil claimant generally may not seek compensation on appeal for a pre-judgment head of loss that was never claimed before the first-instance court.
- An incomplete expert examination does not make an otherwise new appellate claim admissible.
- A loss arising after the first-instance judgment may be claimed for the first time on appeal, and a damages award must be supported by internally consistent calculations.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between an impermissible new appellate claim for a loss predating the trial judgment and a permissible claim for a loss incurred afterward. It also confirms that the principle of full compensation does not override the statutory prohibition on new civil claims on appeal.
The case was remanded to a differently constituted panel of the Colmar Court of Appeal solely to reconsider third-party-assistance expenses and future lost professional earnings. All other portions of the appellate judgment remain in force.