Aller au contenu principal
Articles 27, 28 and 29 of the
Droit Immobilier

Articles 27, 28 and 29 of the

📅 Decision of 14 May 1996🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 16 views📖 2 min read

Articles 27, 28 and 29 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 set the limits of the review of the regularity of the decision whose enforcement is sought. It follows that, save for exceptions, no review may be carried out of the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of origin or of their compliance with the rules on lis pendens, and no review may be carried out, even on grounds of conflict with public policy, of the law applied by the foreign court or a revision on the merits of the decision.

Reference decision: cc • No. 93-15.418 • 1996-05-14 • View the decision →

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

The situation

Articles 27, 28 and 29 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 set the limits of the review of the regularity of the decision whose enforcement is sought. It follows that, save for exceptions, no review may be carried out of the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of origin or of their compliance with the rules on lis pendens, and no review may be carried out, even on grounds of conflict with public policy, of the law applied by the foreign court or a revision on the merits of the decision.

What the law says

This decision confirms the fundamental principles of property law.

Key takeaways

  • Strictly comply with the statutory time limits for appeals
  • Keep all your supporting documents (title deeds, instruments, correspondence)
  • Plan ahead: 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: 93-15.418
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 14 May 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