Aller au contenu principal
Violates Article R
Droit Immobilier

Violates Article R

📅 Decision of 18 December 2013🔄 Updated on 17 October 2026⚖️ Cour de cassation👁️ 73 views📖 2 min read

A court of appeal violates Article R. 13-22 of the Expropriation for Public Utility Code when, in order to hold that the requirements of that article have been complied with, it finds that the expropriating party proves that, on the day the expropriation judge was seised, it sent to the expropriated party its memorial containing the proposed compensation offer, without noting that the application lodged with the expropriation judge mentioned the date of notification to the defendant of the claimant's memorial.

Reference decision: Court of Cassation • No. 12-28.601 • 2013-12-18 • View the decision →

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

The situation

A court of appeal violates Article R. 13-22 of the Expropriation for Public Utility Code when, in order to hold that the requirements of that article have been complied with, it finds that the expropriating party proves that, on the day the expropriation judge was seised, it sent to the expropriated party its memorial containing the proposed compensation offer, without noting that the application lodged with the expropriation judge mentioned the date of notification to the defendant of the claimant's memorial.

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, 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: 12-28.601
  • Court: Cour de cassation
  • Decision of: 18 December 2013

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