{"id":813515,"date":"2026-05-02T05:45:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-02T03:45:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/"},"modified":"2026-05-02T05:45:46","modified_gmt":"2026-05-02T03:45:46","slug":"cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/","title":{"rendered":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 &#8211; Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>Mati\u00e8res : Foncier<\/p>\n<p>Mots cl\u00e9s : PRESCRIPTION ACQUISITIVE \u2013 MISE EN VALEUR \u2013 INEXISTANCE D\u2019ORDONNANCE DE CONSTATATION<\/p>\n<p>Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019ordonnance de justice constatant la mise en valeur entraine l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019une prescription acquisitive.<\/p>\n<p>Cassation : Ordinaire<\/p>\n<p>Nature : Civile<\/p>\n<p>Solution : Rejet<\/p>\n<p>ARRET N\u00b0 492 du 25 juillet 2017<\/p>\n<p>Dossier : 94\/14-CO<\/p>\n<p>PRESCRIPTION ACQUISITIVE \u2013 MISE EN VALEUR \u2013 INEXISTANCE D\u2019ORDONNANCE DE CONSTATATION<\/p>\n<p>\u00ab Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019ordonnance de justice constatant la mise en valeur entra\u00eene l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019une prescription acquisitive \u00bb.<\/p>\n<p>R.M.J et consorts<\/p>\n<p>REPUBLIQUE DE MADAGASCAR<\/p>\n<p>COUR DE CASSATION<\/p>\n<p>CHAMBRE CIVILE COMMERCIALE ET SOCIALE<\/p>\n<p>La Cour de Cassation, Chambre Civile Commerciale et Sociale, en son audience publique ordinaire du vendredi cinq juillet deux mille dix-sept, tenue au palais de Justice \u00e0 Anosy, a rendu l&#039;arr\u00eat dont la teneur suit :<\/p>\n<p>Apr\u00e8s en avoir d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9 conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la loi ;<\/p>\n<p>Statuant sur le pourvoi de R.V, demeurant au [Adresse 1] ayant pour conseil Ma\u00eetre Norosoa RAHARIMALALA, avocat, contre l&#039;arr\u00eat n\u00b0 522 du 28 mai 2015 de la Chambre Civile de la Cour d&#039;Appel d&#039;Antananarivo, rendu dans le litige l&#039;opposant \u00e0 R.M.J et consorts ;<\/p>\n<p>Vu les m\u00e9moires en demande et en d\u00e9fense ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le moyen unique de cassation tir\u00e9 de l&#039;article 26 de la loi organique 2004.036 du 1er octobre 2004 relative \u00e0 la Cour Supr\u00eame et les trois Cours la composant, pris de la violation des articles 167.1 et 164.2 du Code de Proc\u00e9dure Civile pour exc\u00e8s de pouvoir, absence, insuffisance, contradiction de motifs et g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement l&#039;impossibilit\u00e9 pour la Cour de Cassation d&#039;exercer son contr\u00f4le, non r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 conclusions constat\u00e9es par \u00e9crit, en ce que la Cour d&#039;Appel, tout en infirmant simplement en toutes ses dispositions le jugement n\u00b0 001 du 22 f\u00e9vrier 2012 du tribunal d&#039;Antsirabe au motif que la Cour a constat\u00e9 qu&#039;aucune ordonnance n&#039;a \u00e9t\u00e9 prise pour autoriser la Commission de constatation de mise en valeur \u00e0 se r\u00e9unir pour constater la mise en valeur \u00e0 la suite de la demande de prescription acquisitive de la parcelle cadastrale n\u00b0 1263 dite MASINANDRIANA section AB sise \u00e0 Ampamoloambe Ambohidrano, et en argumentant l&#039;inobservation des dispositions de l&#039;article 82 de la loi 60.146 du 03 octobre 1960 sur le r\u00e9gime foncier de l&#039;immatriculation alors que il est constant que l&#039;occupation de la demanderesse avait \u00e9t\u00e9 paisible, continue, non \u00e9quivoque, et conforme \u00e0 la vocation du terrain depuis plus de 20 ann\u00e9es, ce qu&#039;avait constat\u00e9 le jugement n\u00b0 001 du 22 f\u00e9vrier 2012 ; <\/p>\n<p>L&#039;absence de l&#039;ordonnance de justice ordonnant la constatation de la mise en valeur \u00e9tant une condition de forme relative \u00e0 la demande de prescription acquisitive ne peut \u00eatre en aucun cas un motif pour d\u00e9bouter le fond de la demande ; Aux termes des articles 167.1 et 164.2 du Code de Proc\u00e9dure Civile, il appartient au juge de mise en \u00e9tat d&#039;exercer tous les pouvoirs n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la communication, l&#039;obtention et la production des pi\u00e8ces ; <\/p>\n<p>Que l&#039;absence de l&#039;ordonnance de justice ne peut entra\u00eener l&#039;irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande ; l&#039;ordonnance de justice existe bien sous r\u00e9f\u00e9rence 66\/AG\/11 du 20 janvier 2011 ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que l&#039;article 82 de l&#039;ordonnance 60.146 du 03 octobre 1960 relative au r\u00e9gime foncier de l&#039;immatriculation exige entre autres l&#039;occupation pendant au moins 20 ann\u00e9es par des nationaux malagasy d&#039;un immeuble immatricul\u00e9 jointe au fait de la cr\u00e9ation ou l&#039;entretien permanent d&#039;une mise en valeur effective et durable constat\u00e9e sur ordonnance de justice dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues aux articles 18 et suivants de la loi 60.004 du 15 f\u00e9vrier 1960 &#8230;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu qu&#039;en l&#039;esp\u00e8ce l&#039;ordonnance n\u00b0 66\/AG\/11 du 20 janvier 2011 dont fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence la demanderesse ne se trouve nulle part dans le dossier ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que la Commission administrative ne peut se saisir d&#039;office ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu qu&#039;en tirant la cons\u00e9quence de ses constatations sur l&#039;absence de l&#039;ordonnance de justice exig\u00e9e, la Cour d&#039;Appel ne justifie pas les griefs du moyen, lequel ne peut prosp\u00e9rer ;<\/p>\n<p>REJETTE le pourvoi ;<\/p>\n<p>Condamne la demanderesse \u00e0 l&#039;amende et aux d\u00e9pens.<\/p>\n<p>Ainsi jug\u00e9 et prononc\u00e9 par Cour, Chambre les jour, mois et an que dessus.<\/p>\n<p>O\u00f9 \u00e9taient pr\u00e9sents :<\/p>\n<p>Messieurs et Mesdames<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; RAKETAMANGA Odette, Pr\u00e9sident de Chambre, Pr\u00e9sident ;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; RASAMIZAFY Naly Yvonne, Conseiller &#8211; Rapporteur ;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; RANDRIAMANANTENA Mauricette, Conseiller, RABETOKOTANY Marcelline, Conseiller, RASOLONANAHARY Vololoniaina, Conseiller, tous membres ;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; RAZAFINDRAMARO Bodo Vololohanitra, Avocat G\u00e9n\u00e9ral ;<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; RAJAONARISON Herimalala Patricia ;<\/p>\n<p>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<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/jurisprudence.justice.gov.mg\/decision\/details\/DCS6806DD1E12FB5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a> &middot; <a class=\"kji-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/jurisprudence.justice.gov.mg\/decision\/print\/DCS6806DD1E12FB5\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Portail officiel du Ministere de la Justice de Madagascar.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mati\u00e8res : Foncier Mots cl\u00e9s : PRESCRIPTION ACQUISITIVE \u2013 MISE EN VALEUR \u2013 INEXISTANCE D\u2019ORDONNANCE DE CONSTATATION Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019ordonnance de justice constatant la mise en valeur entraine l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019une prescription acquisitive. Cassation : Ordinaire Nature : Civile Solution : Rejet ARRET N\u00b0 492 du 25 juillet 2017 Dossier : 94\/14-CO PRESCRIPTION&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[48960],"kji_court":[48961],"kji_chamber":[49056],"kji_year":[52833],"kji_subject":[7625],"kji_keyword":[49069,8424,8600,48966,21609],"kji_language":[7733],"class_list":["post-813515","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-madagascar","kji_court-cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar","kji_chamber-chambre-civile-commerciale-et-sociale","kji_year-52833","kji_subject-commercial","kji_keyword-acquisitive","kji_keyword-cassation","kji_keyword-juillet","kji_keyword-madagascar","kji_keyword-prescription","kji_language-francais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive - 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-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/\" \/>\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, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Mati\u00e8res : Foncier Mots cl\u00e9s : PRESCRIPTION ACQUISITIVE \u2013 MISE EN VALEUR \u2013 INEXISTANCE D\u2019ORDONNANCE DE CONSTATATION Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019ordonnance de justice constatant la mise en valeur entraine l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019une prescription acquisitive. Cassation : Ordinaire Nature : Civile Solution : Rejet ARRET N\u00b0 492 du 25 juillet 2017 Dossier : 94\/14-CO PRESCRIPTION...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/\" \/>\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=\"4 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-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\\\/\",\"name\":\"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 25 juillet 2017, 94\\\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-02T03:45:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\\\/#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, 25 juillet 2017, 94\\\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 &#8211; Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive\"}]},{\"@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, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive - 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-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive","og_description":"Mati\u00e8res : Foncier Mots cl\u00e9s : PRESCRIPTION ACQUISITIVE \u2013 MISE EN VALEUR \u2013 INEXISTANCE D\u2019ORDONNANCE DE CONSTATATION Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019ordonnance de justice constatant la mise en valeur entraine l\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9 de la demande d\u2019une prescription acquisitive. Cassation : Ordinaire Nature : Civile Solution : Rejet ARRET N\u00b0 492 du 25 juillet 2017 Dossier : 94\/14-CO PRESCRIPTION...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/","name":"Cour de cassation de Madagascar, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 - Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-02T03:45:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-de-madagascar-25-juillet-2017-94-14-co-n-492-prescription-acquisitive\/#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, 25 juillet 2017, 94\/14-CO n\u00b0 492 &#8211; Pr\u00e9scription acquisitive"}]},{"@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\/813515","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=813515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=813515"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=813515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}