{"id":662255,"date":"2026-04-23T19:00:46","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T17:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T19:00:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T17:00:46","slug":"acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Relator: ANT?NIO MAGALH?ES. ?I. Se o ac?rd?o fundamento, que abordou a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, entendeu que a decis?o proferida noutro processo era causa prejudicial dos autos de expropria??o e constitu?a fundamento para a extin??o da inst?ncia por impossibilidade e o ora ac?rd?o recorrido n?o se pronunciou sequer sobre a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, por entender que se tratava de uma quest?o nova, a quest?o fundamental de direito nos dois ac?rd?os n?o ? a mesma, para os efeitos do art. 629?, n? 2, al. d) do CPC; II. N?o se verifica autoridade do caso julgado da decis?o proferida em tribunal administrativo em rela??o ? fixa??o da indemniza??o em processo de expropria??o, se este tribunal, apesar de ter considerado a DUP de 2010 (que renovou a anulada DUP de 2002) sem efeitos retroactivos, n?o concluiu pela impossibilidade de indemniza??o calculada em fun??o da situa??o verificada ? data da DUP de 2002 (em fun??o da ent?o aptid?o florestal do pr?dio r?stico) nem pela necessidade de valoriza??o da auto-estrada que foi implantada depois dessa DUP de 2002 e antes da DUP de 2010?.<\/p>\n

\n

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

Portails officiels portugais (DGSI \/ Tribunal Constitucional). Republication en metadata_only par prudence licencielle ; consulter la source officielle pour le texte authentique.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Relator: ANT?NIO MAGALH?ES. ?I. Se o ac?rd?o fundamento, que abordou a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, entendeu que a decis?o proferida noutro processo era causa prejudicial dos autos de expropria??o e constitu?a fundamento para a extin??o da inst?ncia por impossibilidade e o ora ac?rd?o recorrido n?o se pronunciou sequer sobre a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, por entender que se tratava de uma quest?o nova, a quest?o fundamental de direito nos dois ac?rd?os n?o ? a mesma, para os efeitos do art. 629?, n? 2, al. d) do CPC; II. N?o se verifica autoridade do caso julgado da decis?o proferida em tribunal administrativo em rela??o ? fixa??o da indemniza??o em processo de expropria??o, se este tribunal, apesar de ter considerado a DUP de 2010 (que renovou a anulada DUP de 2002) sem efeitos retroactivos, n?o concluiu pela impossibilidade de indemniza??o calculada em fun??o da situa??o verificada ? data da DUP de 2002 (em fun??o da ent?o aptid?o florestal do pr?dio r?stico) nem pela necessidade de valoriza??o da auto-estrada que foi implantada depois dessa DUP de 2002 e antes da DUP de 2010?.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7762],"kji_court":[7763],"kji_chamber":[9174],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7650],"kji_keyword":[7772,7774,7771,7773,7636],"kji_language":[7770],"class_list":["post-662255","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-portugal","kji_court-supremo-tribunal-de-justica","kji_chamber-1-seco","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-administratif","kji_keyword-acordao","kji_keyword-justica","kji_keyword-processo","kji_keyword-supremo","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-pt"],"yoast_head":"\nAc\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14 - 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\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Relator: ANT?NIO MAGALH?ES. ?I. Se o ac?rd?o fundamento, que abordou a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, entendeu que a decis?o proferida noutro processo era causa prejudicial dos autos de expropria??o e constitu?a fundamento para a extin??o da inst?ncia por impossibilidade e o ora ac?rd?o recorrido n?o se pronunciou sequer sobre a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, por entender que se tratava de uma quest?o nova, a quest?o fundamental de direito nos dois ac?rd?os n?o ? a mesma, para os efeitos do art. 629?, n? 2, al. d) do CPC; II. N?o se verifica autoridade do caso julgado da decis?o proferida em tribunal administrativo em rela??o ? fixa??o da indemniza??o em processo de expropria??o, se este tribunal, apesar de ter considerado a DUP de 2010 (que renovou a anulada DUP de 2002) sem efeitos retroactivos, n?o concluiu pela impossibilidade de indemniza??o calculada em fun??o da situa??o verificada ? data da DUP de 2002 (em fun??o da ent?o aptid?o florestal do pr?dio r?stico) nem pela necessidade de valoriza??o da auto-estrada que foi implantada depois dessa DUP de 2002 e antes da DUP de 2010?.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/\" \/>\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=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\\\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T17:00:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\\\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"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\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14 - 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\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14","og_description":"Relator: ANT?NIO MAGALH?ES. ?I. Se o ac?rd?o fundamento, que abordou a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, entendeu que a decis?o proferida noutro processo era causa prejudicial dos autos de expropria??o e constitu?a fundamento para a extin??o da inst?ncia por impossibilidade e o ora ac?rd?o recorrido n?o se pronunciou sequer sobre a quest?o da falta de objecto da expropria??o, por entender que se tratava de uma quest?o nova, a quest?o fundamental de direito nos dois ac?rd?os n?o ? a mesma, para os efeitos do art. 629?, n? 2, al. d) do CPC; II. N?o se verifica autoridade do caso julgado da decis?o proferida em tribunal administrativo em rela??o ? fixa??o da indemniza??o em processo de expropria??o, se este tribunal, apesar de ter considerado a DUP de 2010 (que renovou a anulada DUP de 2002) sem efeitos retroactivos, n?o concluiu pela impossibilidade de indemniza??o calculada em fun??o da situa??o verificada ? data da DUP de 2002 (em fun??o da ent?o aptid?o florestal do pr?dio r?stico) nem pela necessidade de valoriza??o da auto-estrada que foi implantada depois dessa DUP de 2002 e antes da DUP de 2010?.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/","name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T17:00:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-29-13-9tbcbc-g1-s1-2022-07-14-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 29\/13.9TBCBC.G1.S1 \u2013 2022-07-14"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","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\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/662255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=662255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=662255"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=662255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}