Aller au contenu principal
A legally justified decision which
Droit Immobilier

A legally justified decision which

📅 Decision of 15 January 1997🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 43 views📖 2 min read

A decision is legally justified which, to reject a claim for compensation for damage caused by hares to an apple orchard, holds that a plantation of field-grown fruit trees, however extensive, constitutes an orchard, and that under the law applicable in Alsace-Lorraine, damage to orchards does not give rise to compensation where one has neglected to establish protective installations that are usually sufficient to prevent damage, and that in this case the sleeves used did not constitute protective installations sufficient to usually prevent damage.

Reference decision: cc • N° 94-15.434 • 1997-01-15 • View decision →

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

The situation

A decision is legally justified which, to reject a claim for compensation for damage caused by hares to an apple orchard, holds that a plantation of field-grown fruit trees, however extensive, constitutes an orchard, and that under the law applicable in Alsace-Lorraine, damage to orchards does not give rise to compensation where one has neglected to establish protective installations that are usually sufficient to prevent damage, and that in this case the sleeves used did not constitute protective installations sufficient to usually prevent damage.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points

  • Strictly observe the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Anticipate: preventive advice is always cheaper 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: 94-15.434
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 15 January 1997

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