[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/gregorydamy.niceavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/job-5382501_1280-2.jpg” alt=”retraite ” title_text=”job-5382501_1280-2″ _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
Cass. Ass. Pl\u00e9ni\u00e8re, 22 December 2023, no. 20-20.648<\/p>\n
In a plenary assembly judgment of 22 December 2023 (no. 20-20.648), the Court of Cassation adopted a reversal of case law with regard to evidence in employment law.<\/p>\n
In principle, case law declares evidence obtained unlawfully or unfairly inadmissible (Cass. Soc., 20 November 1991, no. 88-43.120).<\/p>\n
Evidence is considered unlawful or unfair when it has been obtained either by an illegal process or without the person’s knowledge.<\/p>\n
This is the case, for example, of the recording of a telephone conversation without the interlocutor’s knowledge (Cass. Com., 3 June 2008, no. 07-17.147, no. 07-17.196).<\/p>\n
Or the production of audio-visual recordings using surveillance cameras placed without the employees’ knowledge (Cass. Soc. 19 April 2005, no. 02-46.295).<\/p>\n
However, sometimes illicit or unfairly obtained evidence is the only means of proof enabling the employee to assert his rights.<\/p>\n
In the case in point, in the judgment of 22 December 2023, an employee had transcribed a meeting with his employer that had been recorded without his knowledge.<\/p>\n
In accordance with current case law, the judges of the Court of Appeal excluded this evidence from the proceedings, considering that it was unfair and therefore inadmissible.<\/p>\n
However, the Court of Cassation decided to overturn this ruling, declaring the evidence provided by the employee inadmissible.<\/p>\n
According to the judges, evidence obtained illegally or unfairly should no longer be systematically rejected, but should be subject to a proportionality test between the right to evidence and the right affected by that evidence.<\/p>\n
In other words, judges will have to carry out a genuine in concreto review to determine whether the right to evidence needs to prevail over another right.<\/p>\n
This is a fundamental change in case law in this area.<\/p>\n
Ma\u00eetre DAMY, a lawyer in Nice and an expert in employment law, will support you throughout your employment law proceedings.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nice labour law lawyer – Evidence in labour law. Cass. Ass. Pl\u00e9ni\u00e8re, 22 December 2023, no. 20-20.648 In a plenary assembly judgment of 22 December 2023 (no. 20-20.648), the Court of Cassation adopted a reversal of case law with regard to evidence in employment law. In principle, case law declares evidence obtained unlawfully or unfairly […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-987508597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n