Aller au contenu principal
In the presence of two sets of proceedings, one
Droit Immobilier

In the presence of two sets of proceedings, one

📅 Decision of 04 March 1992🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 35 views📖 2 min read

In the presence of two sets of proceedings, one for termination of the lease and the other for determination of an eviction indemnity, a court of appeal was able to decide that since the proceedings were linked to each other by a direct and necessary relationship of dependence, the procedural steps taken in the first interrupted the peremption period relating to the second, given that the outcome of the latter proceedings depended directly on the results of the first.

Reference decision: cc • N° 90-19.697 • 1992-03-04 • View the decision →

This decision provides important insight into your real estate law. Here is what it changes for you.

The situation

In the presence of two sets of proceedings, one for termination of the lease and the other for determination of an eviction indemnity, a court of appeal was able to decide that since the proceedings were linked to each other by a direct and necessary relationship of dependence, the procedural steps taken in the first interrupted the peremption period relating to the second, given that the outcome of the latter proceedings depended directly on the results of the first.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for legal remedies.
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence).
  • 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

Legal information

  • Number: 90-19.697
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 04 March 1992

Keywords

droit immobilierjurisprudenceimmobilier
Maître Cécile Zakine

About the author

Maître Cécile Zakine — Lawyer at the Alpes-Maritimes Bar, Doctor of Law. Every article in this magazine is based on the analysis of a real court decision, commented and put into perspective by Maître Zakine’s team.

Book an appointment →

Disclaimer: The analysis presented on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute personalised legal advice. For advice tailored to your situation, contact a qualified lawyer.

★★★★★4.9/5 — Google Reviews

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

★★★★★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