{"id":560,"date":"2013-08-29T12:49:12","date_gmt":"2013-08-29T10:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/?p=560"},"modified":"2019-03-29T13:05:10","modified_gmt":"2019-03-29T12:05:10","slug":"avocat-florilege-de-decisions-sur-larticle-47-du-cpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/2013\/08\/29\/avocat-florilege-de-decisions-sur-larticle-47-du-cpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Avocat: floril\u00e8ge de d\u00e9cisions sur l\u2019article 47 du CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"<header class=\"entry-header\">\n<div class=\"comments-link\">L\u2019avocat est un auxiliaire de justice<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(1)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_1\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=F30B898BB70AC00855A7D599C4D5AFA3.tpdjo05v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006902768&amp;cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068396&amp;dateTexte=20130829\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Loi n\u00b0 71-1130 du 31 d\u00e9cembre 1971, art.3<\/a><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>, et \u00e0 ce titre, il peut b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier des dispositions de l\u2019<a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070716&amp;idArticle=LEGIARTI000025191414&amp;dateTexte=20130327\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">article 47 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile<\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0<em>Lorsqu\u2019un magistrat ou un auxiliaire de justice est partie \u00e0 un litige qui rel\u00e8ve de la comp\u00e9tence d\u2019une juridiction dans le ressort de laquelle celui-ci exerce ses fonctions, le demandeur peut saisir une juridiction situ\u00e9e dans un ressort limitrophe. Le d\u00e9fendeur ou toutes les parties en cause d\u2019appel peuvent demander le renvoi devant une juridiction choisie dans les m\u00eames conditions<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<div class=\"entry-content\">\n<p>La justification de ce privil\u00e8ge est de garantir, tant \u00e0 l\u2019avocat devenu justiciable qu\u2019\u00e0 son adversaire, que le litige sera trait\u00e9 avec toute la neutralit\u00e9 requise. La jurisprudence en a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 le champ d\u2019application et les conditions de mise en \u0153uvre.<\/p>\n<p>Ainsi, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 que pour l\u2019application de l\u2019article 47 du nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile, le ressort dans lequel l\u2019avocat exerce ses fonctions est celui du tribunal de grande instance pr\u00e8s duquel est constitu\u00e9 le barreau auquel il est inscrit et ne s\u2019\u00e9tend pas \u00e0 celui dans lequel il a ouvert un bureau secondaire<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(2)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_2\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007056060&amp;fastReqId=1548768336&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2e, 7 juin 2006, n\u00b005-12567, Bull. n\u00b0148<\/a><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>.<\/p>\n<p>L\u2019article 47 CPC ne concerne que le cas o\u00f9 un auxiliaire de justice est en cause, non celui dans lequel seul son assureur a \u00e9t\u00e9 attrait en justice<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(3)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_3\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000024334673&amp;fastReqId=946463630&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2e, 7 juillet 2011, n\u00b010-20712<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>. Une soci\u00e9t\u00e9 a assign\u00e9e en justice l\u2019assureur de son avocat auquel elle reprochait une faute dans la conduite d\u2019un dossier, faute lui ayant caus\u00e9 un dommage. L\u2019assignation a \u00e9t\u00e9 faite par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 devant une juridiction limitrophe, la Cour d\u2019appel ayant admis la recevabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019action est censur\u00e9e par la Cour de cassation, consid\u00e9rant que l\u2019action en justice \u00e9tait dirig\u00e9e directement contre l\u2019assureur et qu\u2019aucun magistrat ou auxiliaire de justice n\u2019\u00e9tait partie au litige.<\/p>\n<p>Rappelant une solution classique<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(4)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_4\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007038283&amp;fastReqId=1826976424&amp;fastPos=1\">Cass. civ. 2e, 26 f\u00e9vrier 1997, 95-13904, Bull. n\u00b059 et les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences cit\u00e9es<\/a><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>, la Cour de cassation (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000025119572&amp;fastReqId=1802333063&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2e, 6 janvier 2012, n\u00b010-27998<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b04) censure la cour d\u2019appel qui rejette la demande de d\u00e9paysement de l\u2019avocat, en raison de sa carence proc\u00e9durale (d\u00e9faut de conclusion au soutien de son appel, et absence de moyen \u00e0 l\u2019appui de la demande de suspension de l\u2019ex\u00e9cution provisoire). Elle rappelle que lorsque les conditions d\u2019application de ce texte sont r\u00e9unies, le juge <strong>doit<\/strong> prononcer le renvoi de l\u2019affaire devant une juridiction limitrophe. Il incombe donc au juge du fond de proc\u00e9der aux recherches n\u00e9cessaires, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant. La raison en est sans doute que le renvoi est pr\u00e9vu dans l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat de la Justice, non de l\u2019avocat qui le demande.<\/p>\n<p>Il a \u00e9galement \u00e9t\u00e9 fait application de l\u2019article 47 CPC,\u00a0 la demande cette fois, d\u2019un d\u00e9fendeur simple justiciable, \u00e0 l\u2019encontre d\u2019un ordre, repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par son b\u00e2tonnier, auxiliaire de justice au sens de ce texte. La Cour de cassation<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_5');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(5)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_5\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000026514842&amp;fastReqId=671615869&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2, 18 octobre 2012, n\u00b0 11-22374<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0174<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script> a estim\u00e9 que le fait qu\u2019un groupement professionnel d\u2019auxiliaires de justice, en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce l\u2019Ordre des avocats, d\u00e9fende, non un int\u00e9r\u00eat personnel, mais un principe de fonctionnement et l\u2019application d\u2019une r\u00e9glementation n\u2019exclut pas l\u2019application des dispositions de l\u2019article 47 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, relatif au d\u00e9paysement de l\u2019affaire. La d\u00e9fenderesse, dont il est soutenu qu\u2019elle exerce une activit\u00e9 juridique et de repr\u00e9sentation r\u00e9serv\u00e9e \u00e0 la profession d\u2019avocat et que ces agissements sont constitutifs d\u2019un trouble manifestement illicite, est en droit de demander l\u2019application du principe du d\u00e9paysement de l\u2019affaire. La solution semble aller de soi, puisque si le justiciable peut craindre que la prestance d\u2019un avocat connu des magistrats influe sur leur jugement, a fortiori est-il fond\u00e9 \u00e0 redouter l\u2019influence de l\u2019ensemble de l\u2019ordre des avocats.<\/p>\n<p>De la m\u00eame fa\u00e7on, le litige relatif au licenciement d\u2019un salari\u00e9 de cabinet d\u2019avocat entre dans le champ d\u2019application de l\u2019article 47 CPC<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_6');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_6');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(6)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_6\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">CA Paris, p\u00f4le 6 ch. 11, 14 mai 2010, n\u00b008-09954.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_6').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_6', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>.<\/p>\n<p>En revanche, l\u2019article 47 ne s\u2019applique pas lorsque celui qui l\u2019invoque est poursuivi en sa qualit\u00e9 d\u2019avocat et selon une proc\u00e9dure sp\u00e9cifique \u00e0 la profession.<\/p>\n<p>Ainsi, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 jug\u00e9 que l\u2019avocat salari\u00e9 ne peut se pr\u00e9valoir de l\u2019article 47 CPC<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_7');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_7');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(7)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_7\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">CA Versailles, 1re ch. 1re sect, 4 f\u00e9vrier 2010, RG n\u00b008-06873; CONTRA CA Aix, 19 nov. 2009, RG n\u00b009\/09676<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_7').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_7', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>.<br \/>\nLes diff\u00e9rends professionnels ainsi que les d\u00e9cisions d\u2019arbitrage y aff\u00e9rents, \u00e9chappent par nature aux dispositions de l\u2019article 47 CPC<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_8');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_8');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(8)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_8\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000027129541&amp;fastReqId=380312867&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 27 fe?vrier 2013, n\u00b012-15828<\/a><\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_8').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_8', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script> : le litige n\u00e9 du retrait d\u2019un associ\u00e9 d\u2019une SCP, le retrayant ayant saisi le b\u00e2tonnier d\u2019une demande d\u2019arbitrage conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la proc\u00e9dure sp\u00e9ciale de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends entre avocats \u00e0 l\u2019occasion de leur exercice professionnel, institu\u00e9e aux articles <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=1D9B09BCE640142C91EF818B413914E9.tpdjo11v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000023480327&amp;cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068396&amp;dateTexte=20130416\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">21 de la loi n\u00b0 71-1130 du 31 d\u00e9cembre 1971<\/a> modifi\u00e9e et <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=4BE1A29402B6C5D6608436A49D2B8120.tpdjo06v_2?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000021480356&amp;cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000356568&amp;dateTexte=20130417#LEGISCTA000021480356\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">179-1 \u00e0 179-7 du d\u00e9cret n\u00b0 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991<\/a> modifi\u00e9.\u00a0 Cette d\u00e9cision s\u2019inscrit dans la ligne de l\u2019avis rendu par la <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/jurisprudence_2\/avis_cour_15\/integralite_avis_classes_annees_239\/2011_3825\/23_mai_2011_1100003_3976\/011_00006p_20151.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cour de cassation le 23 mai 2011 n\u00b001100006P<\/a> selon lequel la proc\u00e9dure sp\u00e9ciale de r\u00e8glement des diff\u00e9rends entre avocats \u00e0 l\u2019occasion de leur exercice professionnel, institu\u00e9e aux articles 21 de la loi n\u00b0 71-1130 du 31 d\u00e9cembre 1971 et 179-1 a? 179-7 du d\u00e9cret n\u00b0 91-1197 du 27 novembre 1991, \u00e9chappe par nature aux dispositions de l\u2019article 47 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile.<\/p>\n<p>L\u2019article 47 CPC ne joue pas non plus en mati\u00e8re de proc\u00e9dure disciplinaire des avocats<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_9');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_9');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(9)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_9\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007025876&amp;fastReqId=1635810234&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 12 f\u00e9vrier 1991, n\u00b089-16142<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b060 ; CA Paris P\u00f4le 2 chambre 1 du 10 mai 2012 n\u00b011-06662<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_9').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_9', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>. Les dispositions de l\u2019article 47 du CPC ne sont pas applicables en mati\u00e8re disciplinaire d\u00e8s lors que les poursuites sont soumises \u00e0 l\u2019examen du juge naturel de l\u2019avocat, \u00e0 savoir le conseil de discipline du barreau auquel il appartient et la cour d\u2019appel dont d\u00e9pend ledit conseil.<\/p>\n<p>Dans la mesure o\u00f9 ce type de litige fait \u00e9galement l\u2019objet d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure sp\u00e9cifique, l\u2019article 47 CPC ne joue pas en mati\u00e8re d\u2019honoraires<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_10');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_10');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(10)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_10\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">Cass. civ. 1re, 27-02-2013, n\u00b012-15828; Cass. civ. 1re, 13 mai 2003, n\u00b000-18184; Cass. civ. 1re, 14 mai 1991, n\u00b08915175; Cass. civ. 1re, 18-01-2005, n\u00b0 03-11.740; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007045567&amp;fastReqId=351410115&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 9 oct. 2001, n\u00b099-11897<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0247.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_10').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_10', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>. La proc\u00e9dure sp\u00e9ciale en mati\u00e8re de recouvrement d\u2019honoraires d\u2019avocat, institu\u00e9e par les <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006078311&amp;dateTexte=vig#LEGISCTA000006145642\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">articles 174 et suivants du d\u00e9cret du 27 novembre 1991<\/a>, qui permet de soumettre ces contestations successivement au b\u00e2tonnier de l\u2019Ordre des avocats auquel appartient l\u2019avocat concern\u00e9 puis au premier pr\u00e9sident de la cour d\u2019appel dans le ressort de laquelle l\u2019Ordre est \u00e9tabli, \u00e9chappe, par sa nature, aux dispositions de l\u2019article 47 du nouveau Code de proc\u00e9dure civile.<\/p>\n<p>En revanche, lorsqu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un avocat en liquidation judiciaire, l\u2019article 47 s\u2019applique<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_11');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_11');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(11)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_11\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000025287502&amp;fastReqId=1532728676&amp;fastPos=1\">Cass. com. 31 janvier 2012, n\u00b010-25693<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b015: cassation de l\u2019arr\u00eat de la Cour d\u2019appel qui estime que : \u00ab\u00a0<em>l\u2019article 47 du CPC, dont le m\u00e9canisme est incompatible avec la comp\u00e9tence l\u00e9gale du juge-commissaire d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par le tribunal ayant ouvert la proc\u00e9dure collective, n\u2019est pas applicable devant cet organe de la proc\u00e9dure collective statuant dans la limite de ses attributions<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_11').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_11', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>. La Cour de cassation indique que les r\u00e8gles de comp\u00e9tence \u00e9dict\u00e9es par l\u2019article R.600-1 du code de commerce ne d\u00e9rogent pas \u00e0 l\u2019application de l\u2019article 47 du CPC. Cette solution avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9t\u00e9 indiqu\u00e9e par de pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes d\u00e9cisions<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_12');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_12');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(12)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_12\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000023168391&amp;fastReqId=632549172&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 30 nov. 2010, n\u00b009-17481<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000022924942&amp;fastReqId=1694279025&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 12 octobre 2010, n\u00b009-16743<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000019715202&amp;fastReqId=479876286&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 28 oct. 2008, n\u00b007-20801<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0177.<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_12').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_12', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>. La Cour d\u2019appel de Paris<span class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_13');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_560_1('footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_13');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">(13)<\/sup><\/a><span id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_13\" class=\"footnote_tooltip\">CA Paris P\u00f4le 5 chambre 8 du 8 d\u00e9cembre 2009 n\u00b009-07543<\/span><\/span><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_13').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_560_1_13', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top right', relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });<\/script>, cour d\u2019appel de renvoi dans une affaire concernant un avocat plac\u00e9 en liquidation judiciaire \u00e0 la demande de l\u2019administration fiscale, fait droit \u00e0 la demande de renvoi. Il est rappel\u00e9 le principe selon lequel que les r\u00e8gles de comp\u00e9tence \u00e9dict\u00e9es par l\u2019article R 600-1 du code de commerce ne d\u00e9rogent pas \u00e0 l\u2019application de l\u2019article 47. Et d\u2019autre part, la Cour d\u2019appel consid\u00e8re que celui-ci peut \u00eatre invoqu\u00e9 \u00e0 tous les stades de la proc\u00e9dure, que la d\u00e9signation de la juridiction de renvoi par la Cour de cassation n\u2019interdit pas un nouveau renvoi devant une cour d\u2019appel limitrophe sur le fondement de ce texte, d\u00e8s lors que ses conditions d\u2019application sont r\u00e9unies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<footer class=\"entry-meta\">Cette entr\u00e9e a \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans Proc\u00e9dure civile, et marqu\u00e9e avec Article 47 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, Auxiliaire de justice, Avocat, Demande de renvoi, le <time class=\"entry-date\" datetime=\"2013-08-29T22:25:21+00:00\">29 ao\u00fbt 2013<\/time> <span class=\"by-author\">par <span class=\"author vcard\">matringe<\/span><\/span>.<\/footer>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_560_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_560_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_560_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_560_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_1');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichTexteArticle.do;jsessionid=F30B898BB70AC00855A7D599C4D5AFA3.tpdjo05v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006902768&amp;cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006068396&amp;dateTexte=20130829\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Loi n\u00b0 71-1130 du 31 d\u00e9cembre 1971, art.3<\/a><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_2');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007056060&amp;fastReqId=1548768336&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2e, 7 juin 2006, n\u00b005-12567, Bull. n\u00b0148<\/a><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_3');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000024334673&amp;fastReqId=946463630&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2e, 7 juillet 2011, n\u00b010-20712<\/a>.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_4');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007038283&amp;fastReqId=1826976424&amp;fastPos=1\">Cass. civ. 2e, 26 f\u00e9vrier 1997, 95-13904, Bull. n\u00b059 et les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences cit\u00e9es<\/a><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_5');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000026514842&amp;fastReqId=671615869&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 2, 18 octobre 2012, n\u00b0 11-22374<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0174<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_6');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>6<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">CA Paris, p\u00f4le 6 ch. 11, 14 mai 2010, n\u00b008-09954.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_7');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>7<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">CA Versailles, 1re ch. 1re sect, 4 f\u00e9vrier 2010, RG n\u00b008-06873; CONTRA CA Aix, 19 nov. 2009, RG n\u00b009\/09676<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_8');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>8<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000027129541&amp;fastReqId=380312867&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 27 fe?vrier 2013, n\u00b012-15828<\/a><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_9');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>9<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007025876&amp;fastReqId=1635810234&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 12 f\u00e9vrier 1991, n\u00b089-16142<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b060 ; CA Paris P\u00f4le 2 chambre 1 du 10 mai 2012 n\u00b011-06662<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_10');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>10<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">Cass. civ. 1re, 27-02-2013, n\u00b012-15828; Cass. civ. 1re, 13 mai 2003, n\u00b000-18184; Cass. civ. 1re, 14 mai 1991, n\u00b08915175; Cass. civ. 1re, 18-01-2005, n\u00b0 03-11.740; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000007045567&amp;fastReqId=351410115&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. civ. 1re, 9 oct. 2001, n\u00b099-11897<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0247.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_11');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>11<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000025287502&amp;fastReqId=1532728676&amp;fastPos=1\">Cass. com. 31 janvier 2012, n\u00b010-25693<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b015: cassation de l\u2019arr\u00eat de la Cour d\u2019appel qui estime que : \u00ab\u00a0<em>l\u2019article 47 du CPC, dont le m\u00e9canisme est incompatible avec la comp\u00e9tence l\u00e9gale du juge-commissaire d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par le tribunal ayant ouvert la proc\u00e9dure collective, n\u2019est pas applicable devant cet organe de la proc\u00e9dure collective statuant dans la limite de ses attributions<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_12');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>12<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000023168391&amp;fastReqId=632549172&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 30 nov. 2010, n\u00b009-17481<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000022924942&amp;fastReqId=1694279025&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 12 octobre 2010, n\u00b009-16743<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.legifrance.gouv.fr\/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&amp;idTexte=JURITEXT000019715202&amp;fastReqId=479876286&amp;fastPos=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Cass. com. 28 oct. 2008, n\u00b007-20801<\/a>, Bull. n\u00b0177.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_560_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_560_1_13');\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_plugin_link\" ><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>13<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">CA Paris P\u00f4le 5 chambre 8 du 8 d\u00e9cembre 2009 n\u00b009-07543<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_560_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_560_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_560_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_560_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_560_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_560_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_560_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_560_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_560_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_560_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_560_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_560_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_560_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_560_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>L\u2019avocat est un auxiliaire de justice(1)Loi n\u00b0 71-1130 du 31 d\u00e9cembre 1971, art.3, et \u00e0 ce titre, il peut b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier des dispositions de l\u2019article 47 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile : \u00ab\u00a0Lorsqu\u2019un magistrat ou un auxiliaire de justice est partie \u00e0 un litige qui rel\u00e8ve de la comp\u00e9tence d\u2019une juridiction dans le ressort de laquelle&hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/2013\/08\/29\/avocat-florilege-de-decisions-sur-larticle-47-du-cpc\/\">Poursuivre la lecture <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Avocat: floril\u00e8ge de d\u00e9cisions sur l\u2019article 47 du CPC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,5,23],"tags":[569,570,27,571],"class_list":["post-560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-avocat","category-droit-francais","category-procedure-civile","tag-article-47-du-code-de-procedure-civile","tag-auxiliaire-de-justice","tag-avocat","tag-demande-de-renvoi","entry"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=560"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/560\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":561,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/560\/revisions\/561"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.evematringe.eu\/bl0g\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}