Aller au contenu principal
Droit Immobilier

It is for the judge, seised under

📅 Décision du 22 May 2003⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 1 vues📖 3 min de lecture

It is for the judge, seised under Article 35 bis of the Ordinance of 2 November 1945, to rule, as guardian of individual liberty, on irregularities infringing that liberty, raised by the foreign national, in respect of a police custody measure where it immediately precedes his placement in administrative detention. Under Article 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 15 June 2000, any person placed in police custody must be immediately informed by a judicial police officer, or, under that officer's supervision, by a judicial police agent, of the nature of the offence under investigation; a note of this information is recorded in the official report and initialled by the person in police custody. Consequently, the first president, who, to reject the plea of irregularity of the police custody measure raised by a foreign national and to confirm the decision extending his administrative detention, holds that it follows from the arrest report that, upon seeing the gendarmes, the person concerned attempted to bypass the system set up in order to evade the check, that in those circumstances, the notification of placement in police custody stating that the person concerned is subject to this measure because of indications giving reason to presume that he has committed or attempted to commit an offence is sufficient and that he is not justified in arguing that he was not sufficiently informed of the reasons for his placement in police custody, whereas it did not appear from the police custody placement report that the foreign national had been informed of the nature of the offence under investigation, violates Articles 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 15 June 2000, and 35 bis of the Ordinance of 2 November 1945.

Reference decision: cc • No. 02-50.008 • 2003-05-22 • View decision →

This decision sheds important light on your real estate law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

It is for the judge, seised under Article 35 bis of the Ordinance of 2 November 1945, to rule, as guardian of individual liberty, on irregularities infringing that liberty, raised by the foreign national, in respect of a police custody measure where it immediately precedes his placement in administrative detention. Under Article 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 15 June 2000, any person placed in police custody must be immediately informed by a judicial police officer, or, under that officer's supervision, by a judicial police agent, of the nature of the offence under investigation; a note of this information is recorded in the official report and initialled by the person in police custody. Consequently, the first president, who, to reject the plea of irregularity of the police custody measure raised by a foreign national and to confirm the decision extending his administrative detention, holds that it follows from the arrest report that, upon seeing the gendarmes, the person concerned attempted to bypass the system set up in order to evade the check, that in those circumstances, the notification of placement in police custody stating that the person concerned is subject to this measure because of indications giving reason to presume that he has committed or attempted to commit an offence is sufficient and that he is not justified in arguing that he was not sufficiently informed of the reasons for his placement in police custody, whereas it did not appear from the police custody placement report that the foreign national had been informed of the nature of the offence under investigation, violates Articles 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 63-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Act of 15 June 2000, and 35 bis of the Ordinance of 2 November 1945.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key takeaways

  • Strictly comply with statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (deeds, instruments, letters)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice always costs less than litigation

For an analysis of your situation: 30-minute consultation at €45 with Maître Zakine.

📌 Does this apply to your situation? Maître Cécile Zakine, French real estate lawyer, practises throughout France.
→ Prendre RDV pour une consultation droit du travail  |  → Browse all our legal articles

Informations juridiques

  • Numéro: 02-50.008
  • Juridiction: Cour de cassation
  • Date de décision: 22 mai 2003

Mots-clés

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
Maître Cécile Zakine

À propos de l'auteur

Maître Cécile Zakine — Avocate au Barreau des Alpes-Maritimes, Docteur en Droit. Chaque article de ce magazine est rédigé à partir de l'analyse d'une décision de jurisprudence réelle, commentée et mise en perspective par les équipes de Maître Zakine.

Prendre rendez-vous →

Avertissement: Les analyses présentées sur ce site sont fournies à titre informatif uniquement et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques personnalisés. Pour une consultation adaptée à votre situation, contactez un avocat.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Does this affect you?

Consult Maître Zakine — lawyer, Doctor of Law. Fast, clear answer.

Book a consultation →

🔒 Confidential · No obligation

📬 Get legal updates

One legal analysis per week, straight to your inbox. Free, no spam.

🔒 1-click unsubscribe · GDPR compliant

Articles similaires en Immobilier

Voir tout →

Viole les articles L

Viole les articles L. 412-8 du Code rural et 1583 du Code civil, la cour d'appel qui déclare nulle l'acceptation par le preneur des conditions proposées pour une parcelle libre de location alors que la mise en vente, par acte unique, de cette parcelle et d'une parcelle donnée à bail, ne peut priver le bénéficiaire du droit de préemption de son droit d'accepter l'offre de vente de la parcelle libre de location.

07 sept. 2026Lire →

Jurisprudence immobilière : analyse et conseils pratiques

Il résulte des articles L. 121-1, L. 123-4, L. 123-15 et L. 124-1 du code rural et de la pêche maritime que les échanges amiables d'immeubles ruraux, même en l'absence d'un périmètre d'aménagement, constituent un mode d'aménagement foncier rural, reposant sur le principe d'équivalence des attributions, et que les coéchangistes ne peuvent déroger, sans l'accord du preneur, au report du bail rural sur les parcelles acquises par le bailleur

07 sept. 2026Lire →

Droit de la propriété : cadre légal et solutions

Une cour d'appel, qui retient qu'il s'évince d'une convention d'occupation précaire et des sujétions affectant la parcelle litigieuse que la location à titre agricole d'une partie de l'immeuble n'était que l'accessoire et ne pouvait pas remettre en cause la vocation, à des fins techniques d'installation d'antennes de diffusion, de l'ensemble de la parcelle, en déduit justement, pour refuser de requalifier en bail rural cette convention d'occupation précaire, que, jusqu'à la date de l'enlèvement effectif des antennes, la parcelle n'avait aucune utilisation agricole à titre principal.

07 sept. 2026Lire →

Explorez plus d'analyses juridiques en droit immobilier

Tous les articles Immobilier
★★★★★4.9/5 — Avis Google

Maître Zakine, Doctor of Law

Phone and video consultations available — Fast appointments

Book an appointment
First consultation 30 minutes — €45

🔒 Confidentiel • Sans engagement • Réponse rapide