Majority Partner
LexInter | March 31, 2003 | 0 Comments

Majority Partner

Court of Cassation
Social Chamber

Public hearing of October 17, 2000 Rejection


Appeal number: 98-45387
Unpublished titled

Chairman: M. WAQUET advisor

On the appeal brought by Mr. Ignace Vincenti, residing at 7, avenue de la Soude, building A1, Les Myosotis, 13009 Marseille,

in cassation of a judgment rendered on June 30, 1998 by the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal (18th Social Chamber), in favor of:

1 / Mr. Astier, taken in his capacity as liquidator of the company DRMEP, residing at 1, rue Roux de Brignolles, 13006 Marseille,

2 / of the CGEA de Marseille, whose registered office is 27, boulevard Nédelec, 13331 Marseille Cedex 3,

defendants in cassation;

THE COURT, in the public hearing of June 27, 2000, where were present: M. Waquet, adviser dean acting as president, Mme Lebée, referendum adviser rapporteur, M. Brissier, adviser, MM. Soury, Liffran, Mmes Duval-Arnould, Ruiz-Nicolétis, referendum advisers, M. Duplat, advocate general, Mme Molle-de Hédouville, chamber clerk;

On the report of Ms. Lebée, referendum advisor, the conclusions of Mr. Duplat, advocate general, and after having deliberated in accordance with the law;

Of the three means combined:

Whereas Mr. Vincenti, commercial director of the company DRMEP, of which he held 75% of the shares, was dismissed on November 16, 1994 by the agent for the judicial liquidation of this company;

Whereas Mr Vincenti criticizes the judgment under appeal (Aix-en-Provence, June 30, 1998) for having rejected his request for his salary claim to be fixed, whereas, according to the means, on the first part, there is no legal incompatibility between the status of majority shareholder and that of employee; second hand, that in the presence of a work contract, it belonged to those who invoked its fictitious character to provide proof, proof not reported in this case; third part, that he was dismissed by the agent-liquidator who never contested his quality of employee;

But expected, first, that it results from the findings of the trial judges that no employment contract has been signed by the employer;

Whereas, then, the court of appeal decided exactly that the person concerned, unimportant that he was dismissed by the liquidator-agent, being the holder of 75% of the shares in the company, could not be in a relationship of subordination to it; that the means are unfounded;

FOR THESE REASONS :

DISMISSES the appeal;

Orders Mr Vincenti to pay the costs;

Thus done and judged by the Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, and pronounced by the president in his public hearing on October 17th, 2000.
Contested decision: Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal (18th Social Chamber) 1998-06-30
Titles and summaries EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, TRAINING – Definition – Subordination relationship – Majority partner (no).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image