Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

The procedure of controlling hunting misdemeanors – violation report – conditions of authenticity – procedures of sanctions – procedure of seizing hunting tools – seizure and confiscation – display of legal effect – condition of non annulment.

Pays/Territoire
Maroc
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Sep 25, 2014
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Cassation
Siège de la cour
Rabat
Langue
Anglais
Résumé

The Decree of 21/07/1923 refers to the provisions of Dahir 10/10/1917 which states in Article 60 the legal form of reports done in its framework: “senior employees of forests and their assistants shall write their reports by themselves under penalty of annulment and is dated on the time it was finished, these reports are exempted from identification, stamps and registration fees”. Thus, the legislator did not make the violator’s signature on the report a condition to the authenticity of the report from a legal stand point, knowing that Article 24 of the code of criminal procedures contested to be breached and even if the special text is introduced over the general text in the implementation, the lack of the signature of the interrogated did not involve the annulment of report but rather obligated the officer with the necessity to mention the reason for not having the signature of the person interrogated for his statements. The court rejected the defense that the writer of the report was not wearing his official clothes and had no professional badge because it was not raised at the time and thus implemented Article 323 of the code of procedures rightfully. Also, the court when supported the first instance court’s decision regarding fine did not have to look at reconciliation chart as long as it specified the fine as a penalty within legal limits which makes the argument unfounded. However the court when issuing the decision justified its decision to support the first instance court decision to seize the confined material without displaying the different legal effects for both the seizure and the confiscation it subjected its decision to contestation and partial annulment regarding the support of the first instance court on the confiscation of the confined and rejecting anything otherwise.


Decision partially reversed

Disponible en
Court of Cassation’s Decisions on the environment