{"id":811333,"date":"2026-05-02T00:09:52","date_gmt":"2026-05-01T22:09:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/"},"modified":"2026-05-02T00:09:52","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T22:09:52","slug":"cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/","title":{"rendered":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 – P\u00e9remption d’instance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Mati\u00e8res : Proc\u00e9dure<\/p>\n

Mots cl\u00e9s : EXPERTISE \u2013 ARRET ADD 2011 \u2013 DILIGENCE APPELANTS \u2013 EXECUTION 2011 \u2013 DEPOT TARDIF RAPPORT PAR EXPERT DESIGNE 2014 \u2013 NEGLIGENCE APPELANTS (NON) \u2013 PEREMPTION INSTANCE \u2013 FAUSSE APPLICATION LOI<\/p>\n

Pour l\u2019expertise ordonn\u00e9e par arr\u00eat avant dire droit en 2011 et ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la m\u00eame ann\u00e9e \u00e0 la diligence des appelants, aucune n\u00e9gligence ne peut \u00eatre reproch\u00e9e \u00e0 ces derniers face au d\u00e9p\u00f4t tardif du rapport d\u2019expertise seulement en 2014. En pronon\u00e7ant la p\u00e9remption d\u2019instance, la cour d\u2019appel a fait une fausse application de l\u2019article 385 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile.<\/p>\n

Cassation : Ordinaire<\/p>\n

Nature : Civile<\/p>\n

Solution : Cassation<\/p>\n

Arr\u00eat n\u00b0 707 du 10 octobre 2017<\/p>\n

Dossier : 012\/15-CO<\/p>\n

EXPERTISE \u2013 ARRET ADD 2011 \u2013 DILIGENCE APPELANTS \u2013 EXECUTION 2011 \u2013 DEPOT TARDIF RAPPORT PAR EXPERT DESIGNE 2014 \u2013 NEGLIGENCE APPELANTS (NON) \u2013 PEREMPTION INSTANCE \u2013 FAUSSE APPLICATION LOI<\/p>\n

\u00ab Pour l\u2019expertise ordonn\u00e9e par arr\u00eat avant dire droit en 2011 et ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la m\u00eame ann\u00e9e \u00e0 la diligence des appelants, aucune n\u00e9gligence ne peut \u00eatre reproch\u00e9e \u00e0 ces derniers face au d\u00e9p\u00f4t tardif du rapport d\u2019expertise seulement en 2014. En pronon\u00e7ant la p\u00e9remption d\u2019instance, la cour d\u2019appel a fait une fausse application de l\u2019article 385 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile. \u00bb<\/p>\n

H\u00e9ritiers de R.V.J repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par R.H, assist\u00e9s de Ma\u00eetre RAHARIVOLOLONA Noro Helisoa<\/p>\n

H\u00e9ritiers de R.Z<\/p>\n

R\u00c9PUBLIQUE DE MADAGASCAR<\/p>\n

COUR DE CASSATION<\/p>\n

CHAMBRE CIVILE COMMERCIALE SOCIALE<\/p>\n

La Cour de Cassation, Chambre Civile Commerciale Sociale en son audience publique ordinaire du mardi dix octobre deux mille dix-sept, tenue au Palais de Justice \u00e0 Anosy, a rendu l'arr\u00eat dont la teneur suit :<\/p>\n

Apr\u00e8s en avoir d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9 conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la loi ;<\/p>\n

Statuant sur le pourvoi des h\u00e9ritiers de R.V.J, repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par R.H demeurant au lot [Adresse 1] Antananarivo, ayant pour conseil Ma\u00eetre RAHARIVOLOLONA Noro Helisoa, avocat \u00e0 la Cour, \u00e9lisant domicile en l\u2019\u00e9tude dudit conseil au lot II H 29 Ampandrana Ouest, Antananarivo contre l\u2019arr\u00eat n\u00b0 256 rendu le 04 mars 2014 par la Chambre Civile de la Cour d\u2019Appel d\u2019Antananarivo ;<\/p>\n

Vu le m\u00e9moire en demande ;<\/p>\n

Sur le moyen unique de cassation tir\u00e9 de l\u2019application de l\u2019article 26 de la Loi organique n\u00b02004.036 du 1er octobre 2004 sur la Cour Supr\u00eame, pris de la violation des articles 285, 285.6 et 465.1 al.3 du Code de Proc\u00e9dure Civile, pour fausse application de la loi, en ce que la Cour a constat\u00e9 la p\u00e9remption d\u2019instance aux motifs qu\u2019il y a n\u00e9gligence des parties pendant deux ans alors que c\u2019est l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 par la Cour qui n\u2019a pas accompli son travail et n\u2019a pas d\u00e9pos\u00e9 son rapport dans le d\u00e9lai imparti par l\u2019arr\u00eat, que les h\u00e9ritiers R.V.J ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 consign\u00e9 tous les frais d\u2019expertise ; que malgr\u00e9 les nombreuses r\u00e9clamations faites par ces derniers, il n\u2019a d\u00e9pos\u00e9 son rapport que le 21 ao\u00fbt 2014 apr\u00e8s la d\u00e9cision de p\u00e9remption ;<\/p>\n

Vu les textes vis\u00e9s au moyen ;<\/p>\n

Attendu que la Cour d\u2019Appel a ordonn\u00e9 l\u2019expertise par arr\u00eat ADD n\u00b0 749 du 31 mai 2011 et renvoy\u00e9 l\u2019affaire au 05 juillet 2011 ; qu\u2019\u00e0 la diligence des appelants, la mesure a \u00e9t\u00e9 effectu\u00e9e d\u00e8s le 08 juillet 2011 mais que le rapport n\u2019a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9pos\u00e9 que le 21 ao\u00fbt 2014 :<\/p>\n

CASSE ET ANNULE l\u2019arr\u00eat n\u00b0 256 du 04 mars 2014 de la Cour d\u2019Appel d\u2019Antananarivo ;<\/p>\n

Renvoie devant la m\u00eame juridiction, autrement compos\u00e9e ;<\/p>\n

Ordonne restitution de l\u2019amende ;<\/p>\n

Condamne les d\u00e9fendeurs aux d\u00e9pens. <\/p>\n

Ainsi jug\u00e9 et prononc\u00e9 par Cour, Chambre les jour, mois et an que dessus.<\/p>\n

O\u00f9 \u00e9taient pr\u00e9sents :<\/p>\n

Messieurs et Mesdames<\/p>\n

La minute du pr\u00e9sent arr\u00eat a \u00e9t\u00e9 sign\u00e9e par le Pr\u00e9sident, le Rapporteur et le Greffier.\/.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Portail officiel du Ministere de la Justice de Madagascar.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mati\u00e8res : Proc\u00e9dure Mots cl\u00e9s : EXPERTISE \u2013 ARRET ADD 2011 \u2013 DILIGENCE APPELANTS \u2013 EXECUTION 2011 \u2013 DEPOT TARDIF RAPPORT PAR EXPERT DESIGNE 2014 \u2013 NEGLIGENCE APPELANTS (NON) \u2013 PEREMPTION INSTANCE \u2013 FAUSSE APPLICATION LOI Pour l\u2019expertise ordonn\u00e9e par arr\u00eat avant dire droit en 2011 et ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la m\u00eame ann\u00e9e \u00e0…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[48960],"kji_court":[48961],"kji_chamber":[48962],"kji_year":[52833],"kji_subject":[7625],"kji_keyword":[8424,51471,48966,8598,55151],"kji_language":[7733],"class_list":["post-811333","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-madagascar","kji_court-cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar","kji_chamber-chambre-civile-commerciale-sociale","kji_year-52833","kji_subject-commercial","kji_keyword-cassation","kji_keyword-instance","kji_keyword-madagascar","kji_keyword-octobre","kji_keyword-peremption","kji_language-francais"],"yoast_head":"\nCour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Mati\u00e8res : Proc\u00e9dure Mots cl\u00e9s : EXPERTISE \u2013 ARRET ADD 2011 \u2013 DILIGENCE APPELANTS \u2013 EXECUTION 2011 \u2013 DEPOT TARDIF RAPPORT PAR EXPERT DESIGNE 2014 \u2013 NEGLIGENCE APPELANTS (NON) \u2013 PEREMPTION INSTANCE \u2013 FAUSSE APPLICATION LOI Pour l\u2019expertise ordonn\u00e9e par arr\u00eat avant dire droit en 2011 et ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la m\u00eame ann\u00e9e \u00e0...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\\\/\",\"name\":\"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\\\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-01T22:09:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\\\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 – P\u00e9remption d’instance\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance","og_description":"Mati\u00e8res : Proc\u00e9dure Mots cl\u00e9s : EXPERTISE \u2013 ARRET ADD 2011 \u2013 DILIGENCE APPELANTS \u2013 EXECUTION 2011 \u2013 DEPOT TARDIF RAPPORT PAR EXPERT DESIGNE 2014 \u2013 NEGLIGENCE APPELANTS (NON) \u2013 PEREMPTION INSTANCE \u2013 FAUSSE APPLICATION LOI Pour l\u2019expertise ordonn\u00e9e par arr\u00eat avant dire droit en 2011 et ex\u00e9cut\u00e9e par l\u2019expert d\u00e9sign\u00e9 la m\u00eame ann\u00e9e \u00e0...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/","name":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 - P\u00e9remption d'instance - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-01T22:09:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-10-octobre-2017-012-15-co-n-707-peremption-dinstance\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 10 octobre 2017, 012\/15-CO n\u00b0 707 – P\u00e9remption d’instance"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/811333","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=811333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=811333"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=811333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}