Aller au contenu principal
The clause relating to the designated use of
Droit Immobilier

The clause relating to the designated use of

📅 Decision of 09 October 1996🔄 Updated on 16 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 14 views📖 2 min read

The clause relating to the designated use of the building under which the residential premises could only be occupied and used as student housing did not prohibit the owner from carrying out acts of disposal of the building but obliged him to reserve its occupation for students for 20 years; a court of appeal correctly held that this was merely a limitation on the rights to use and administer, which do not fall within the list in Article 38 of the Act of 1 June 1924.

Reference decision: cc • No. 94-20.435 • 1996-10-09 • View the decision →

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

The situation

The clause relating to the designated use of the building under which the residential premises could only be occupied and used as student housing did not prohibit the owner from carrying out acts of disposal of the building but obliged him to reserve its occupation for students for 20 years; a court of appeal correctly held that this was merely a limitation on the rights to use and administer, which do not fall within the list in Article 38 of the Act of 1 June 1924.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key points to remember

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, deeds, correspondence)
  • Be proactive: 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: 94-20.435
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 09 October 1996

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