Aller au contenu principal
It is for the judge, seised under
Droit Immobilier

It is for the judge, seised under

📅 Decision of 22 May 2003🔄 Updated on 4 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 5 views📖 3 min read

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

Legal information

  • Number: 02-50.008
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 22 May 2003

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