{"id":596,"date":"2026-01-19T21:17:44","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T20:17:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/etudes-de-cas\/quashing-a-court-summons\/"},"modified":"2026-01-24T11:24:35","modified_gmt":"2026-01-24T10:24:35","slug":"quashing-a-court-summons","status":"publish","type":"case-studies","link":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/en\/case-study\/quashing-a-court-summons\/","title":{"rendered":"Quashing a Court Summons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n

Procedural Defect – Business Criminal Law<\/p>\n \n

\n
\n
\n

Paul Feutz defended the director of a Swiss company summoned to court for undeclared work committed in France.<\/h2>\n

He identified that the summons was defective due to its lack of translation.<\/h3>\n

At the hearing, he immediately raised this nullity, which the court granted, consequently declining jurisdiction over the case.<\/h3>\n

Only a summons of the defendant in Switzerland, through a relatively lengthy and complex procedure, would theoretically allow him to be summoned to court again.<\/h3>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n\n\n
\n
\n Read more<\/span>\n <\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg>\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg>\n \n <\/path>\n <\/svg>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/a> <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-596","case-studies","type-case-studies","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case-studies\/596","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/case-studies"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/case-studies"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.oreste-avocats.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}