Contrary to what Maître Portejoie states in an RCI article, the interim order of May 7, 2025 has not been confirmed. The Court of Appeals, in its decision of December 2, 2025, held, on the contrary, that overturned the decision focused on the essentials and concluded that it There was no basis for summary proceedings..
1. The Court did not uphold the order; it overturned it.
The ruling handed down by the Civil Division on December 2, 2025, is unambiguous:
« Overturns the order dated May 7, 2025 (…) except insofar as it held that the judge presiding over interim relief proceedings had been properly seized of the matter and dismissed the objection that the judicial court lacked jurisdiction in favor of the administrative court; ; Ruled that there was no basis for summary proceedings. »
In other words, the Court of Appeals cancel the measure that required Blue Lines to resume service and deletes therefore any legal basis to the penalty payment.
2. Why the statements reported in the RCI article are legally false
In the RCI article, Maître Portejoie states that the judge «upheld the trial court’s judgment.» This statement is factually contradicted by the decision.
The Court confirmed only the jurisdiction of the judicial judge. On all other matters—compulsory repossession, penalty payments, enforcement measures—the order is overturned.
The order has not «become moot,» as the attorney claims: it disappears because the decision establishing it is canceled.
3. What the Court Actually Decided
Confirmation solely of the jurisdiction of the judicial judge.
Reversal of the order regarding all measures ordered.
Elimination of the €5,000-per-day penalty.
No obligation to resume service immediately.
Invitation to the parties to file a complaint with the trial court.
4. Neither a communication problem nor an interpretation problem
To present this decision as a «confirmation» of the order constitutes a major legal forgery.
This creates a narrative false for users, giving the impression that the courts had upheld the buyback requirement.
Conclusion: What the courts actually say is worth repeating.
• The order of May 7, 2025, was not upheld.
• All of its mandatory provisions were overturned.
• There are no longer any penalties.
• No immediate obligation to resume operations has been imposed by a judge.
• The dispute must now be brought before the trial judge.
Contradictory public statements, repeated without verification, fuel a incorrect reading of the decision and must be corrected to ensure that users receive reliable information.
Such conduct amounts to intellectual fraud and is unacceptable journalistic behavior.
Gérard DORWLING-CARTER
