{"id":766866,"date":"2026-04-30T00:18:54","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T22:18:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T00:18:58","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T22:18:58","slug":"cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/","title":{"rendered":"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>N\u00b0 80 \/ 2019 du 02.05.2019. Num\u00e9ro CAS -2018-00038 du registre.<\/p>\n<p>Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeu di, deux mai deux mille dix-neuf.<\/p>\n<p>Composition:<\/p>\n<p>Jean-Claude WIWINIUS, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Romain LUDOVICY, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Carlo HEYARD, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Eliane EICHER, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Michel REIFFERS, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Marc HARPES, premier avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, Marcel SCHWARTZ, adjoint du greffi er en chef.<\/p>\n<p>Entre:<\/p>\n<p>A),<\/p>\n<p>demanderesse en cassation,<\/p>\n<p>comparant par Ma\u00eetre Stephan WONNEBAUER , avocat \u00e0 la Cour, en l\u2019\u00e9tude duquel domicile est \u00e9lu, et:<\/p>\n<p>la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e B) ,<\/p>\n<p>d\u00e9fenderesse en cassation,<\/p>\n<p>comparant par Ma\u00eetre P ierrot SCHILTZ, avocat \u00e0 la Cour, en l\u2019\u00e9tude duquel domicile est \u00e9lu.<\/p>\n<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<\/p>\n<p>LA COUR DE CASSATION :<\/p>\n<p>Vu l\u2019arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9, num\u00e9ro 116\/17, rendu le 1 6 novembre 2017 sous le num\u00e9ro 44430 du r\u00f4le par la Cour d\u2019appel du Grand-Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg, troisi\u00e8me chambre, si\u00e9geant en mati\u00e8 re de droit du travail ;<\/p>\n<p>Vu le m\u00e9moire en cassation signifi\u00e9 le 28 juin 2018 par A) \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e B) , d\u00e9pos\u00e9 au greffe de la Cour le 2 juillet 2018 ;<\/p>\n<p>Vu le m\u00e9moire en r\u00e9ponse signifi\u00e9 le 9 ao\u00fbt 2018 par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e B) \u00e0 A), d\u00e9pos\u00e9 au greffe de la Cour le 17 ao\u00fbt 2018 ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le rapport du conseiller Carlo HEYARD et sur les conclusions de l\u2019avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Monique SCHMITZ ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur les faits :<\/p>\n<p>Attendu, selon l\u2019arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9, que le tribunal du travail de Luxembourg avait d\u00e9clar\u00e9 non fond\u00e9e la demande en paiement du salaire social minimum des travailleurs qualifi\u00e9s dirig\u00e9e par A) contre son employeur, la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e B) ; que la Cour d\u2019appel a confirm\u00e9 le jugement entrepris ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le premier moyen de cassation :<\/p>\n<p>\u00ab tir\u00e9 de la violation ou de la fausse application de la loi, sp\u00e9cialement de l&#039;article L.222- 4 (2) du Code du travail, et de l&#039;absence de motifs, erreur manifeste d&#039;appr\u00e9ciation, le manque de base l\u00e9gale, sinon de la fausse interpr\u00e9tation de la loi,<\/p>\n<p>en ce que l&#039;arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9 a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 que :<\/p>\n<p>il appartient au salari\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9tend avoir droit au salaire social minimum qualifi\u00e9 de rapporter la preuve que la fonction exerc\u00e9e en fait aupr\u00e8s de son employeur est de celles pour lesquelles il existe un enseignement et une formation sanctionn\u00e9es par un CATP et qu&#039;il dispose de l&#039;exp\u00e9rience pratique le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant requise,<\/p>\n<p>pour en conclure que :<\/p>\n<p>au moment de son engagement aupr\u00e8s de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 B) en juin 2007 et durant toute la p\u00e9riode d&#039;engagement, la salari\u00e9e, d&#039;une part n&#039;\u00e9tait pas en possession d&#039;un CATP, et d&#039;autre part, n&#039;a d\u00e8s lors pas pu, contrairement \u00e0 ce qu&#039;elle affirme, avoir inform\u00e9 son employeur qu&#039;elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9tentrice d&#039;un certificat \u00e9quivalent au CATP luxembourgeois, d\u00e8s lors qu&#039;elle n&#039;a eu cette &lt;&lt; Best\u00e4tigung &gt;&gt; que bien apr\u00e8s la fin de la relation de travail, alors qu&#039;aucune distinction n&#039;est faite entre les salari\u00e9s acc\u00e9dant \u00e0 l&#039;\u00e9quivalence au cours ou post\u00e9rieurement \u00e0 leur embauche et ceux qui en sont titulaires d\u00e8s l&#039;entr\u00e9e en service,<\/p>\n<p>et que partant aucune disposition l\u00e9gale n&#039;impose au salari\u00e9 de disposer au d\u00e9but de son embauche de l&#039;\u00e9quivalence d\u00e9livr\u00e9e par le ministre luxembourgeois ayant l&#039;Education nationale dans ses attributions \u00bb ;<\/p>\n<p>3 Attendu qu\u2019aux termes de l\u2019article 10, alin\u00e9a 2, de la loi modifi\u00e9e du 18 f\u00e9vrier 1885 sur les pourvois et la proc\u00e9dure en cassation, un moyen ou un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de moyen ne doit, sous peine d\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9, mettre en \u0153uvre qu\u2019un seul cas d\u2019ouverture ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que le moyen met en \u0153uvre la violation de l\u2019article L. 222-4, paragraphe 2, du Code du travail, le d\u00e9faut de motifs et le manque de la base l\u00e9gale, partant trois cas d\u2019ouverture distincts ;<\/p>\n<p>Qu\u2019il en suit que le moyen est irrecevable ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le second moyen de cassation :<\/p>\n<p>\u00ab tir\u00e9 de la violation ou de la fausse application de la loi, sp\u00e9cialement de l&#039;article L.222- 4 (3) du Code du travail, et de l&#039;absence de motifs, erreur manifeste d&#039;appr\u00e9ciation, le manque de base l\u00e9gale, sinon de la fausse interpr\u00e9tation de la loi,<\/p>\n<p>En ce que l\u2019arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9 a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 que :<\/p>\n<p>la salari\u00e9e aurait encore pu prouver, pour prosp\u00e9rer dans sa demande, qu\u2019elle a r\u00e9ellement travaill\u00e9 pendant dix ans comme vendeuse aupr\u00e8s de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 employeuse,<\/p>\n<p>et que :<\/p>\n<p>la p\u00e9riode d\u2019engagement de la salari\u00e9e ne porte que sur huit ann\u00e9es,<\/p>\n<p>alors qu\u2019aucune disposition de l\u2019article L.222- 4 (3) du Code du travail n\u2019impose que les dix ann\u00e9es de service ne soient effectu\u00e9es aupr\u00e8s du m\u00eame employeur \u00bb ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu qu\u2019aux termes de l\u2019article 10, alin\u00e9a 2, de la loi modifi\u00e9e du 18 f\u00e9vrier 1885 sur les pourvois et la proc\u00e9dure en cassation, un moyen ou un \u00e9l\u00e9ment de moyen ne doit, sous peine d\u2019irrecevabilit\u00e9, mettre en \u0153uvre qu\u2019un seul cas d\u2019ouverture ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que le moyen met en \u0153uvre la violation de l\u2019article L. 222-4, paragraphe 3, du Code du travail, le d\u00e9faut de motifs et le manque de la base l\u00e9gale, partant trois cas d\u2019ouverture distincts ;<\/p>\n<p>Qu\u2019il en suit que le moyen est irrecevable ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur la demande en allocation d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure :<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que la demanderesse en cassation \u00e9tant \u00e0 condamner aux d\u00e9pens de l\u2019instance en cassation, sa demande en allocation d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure est \u00e0 rejeter ;<\/p>\n<p>4 Par ces motifs,<\/p>\n<p>rejette le pourvoi ;<\/p>\n<p>rejette la demande en allocation d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure ;<\/p>\n<p>condamne la demanderesse en cassation aux d\u00e9pens de l\u2019instance en cassation.<\/p>\n<p>La lecture du pr\u00e9sent arr\u00eat a \u00e9t\u00e9 faite en la susdite audience publique par Monsieur le pr\u00e9sident Jean -Claude WIWINIUS, en pr\u00e9sence de Monsieur Marc HARPES, premier avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et de Monsieur Marcel SCHWARTZ, adjoint du greffier en chef .<\/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:\/\/data.public.lu\/fr\/datasets\/cour-de-cassation\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a> &middot; <a class=\"kji-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/download.data.public.lu\/resources\/cour-de-cassation\/20240806-151133\/20190502-cas-2018-00038a-accessible.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Licence CC BY-ND 4.0 (Administration judiciaire, data.public.lu). Republication autorisee avec attribution, sans modification editoriale du texte integral.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>N\u00b0 80 \/ 2019 du 02.05.2019. Num\u00e9ro CAS -2018-00038 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeu di, deux mai deux mille dix-neuf. Composition: Jean-Claude WIWINIUS, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Romain LUDOVICY, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[8418],"kji_court":[8423],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[45029],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[8424],"kji_language":[7733],"class_list":["post-766866","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-luxembourg","kji_court-cour-de-cassation","kji_year-45029","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-cassation","kji_language-francais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038 - 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\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"N\u00b0 80 \/ 2019 du 02.05.2019. Num\u00e9ro CAS -2018-00038 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeu di, deux mai deux mille dix-neuf. Composition: Jean-Claude WIWINIUS, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Romain LUDOVICY, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-29T22:18:58+00:00\" \/>\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=\"5 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\\\/\",\"name\":\"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-29T22:18:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-29T22:18:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\\\/#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\":\"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038\"}]},{\"@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":"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038 - 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\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038","og_description":"N\u00b0 80 \/ 2019 du 02.05.2019. Num\u00e9ro CAS -2018-00038 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeu di, deux mai deux mille dix-neuf. Composition: Jean-Claude WIWINIUS, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Romain LUDOVICY, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","article_modified_time":"2026-04-29T22:18:58+00:00","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":"5 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/","name":"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-29T22:18:54+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-29T22:18:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-2-mai-2019-n-2018-00038\/#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":"Cour de cassation, 2 mai 2019, n\u00b0 2018-00038"}]},{"@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\/766866","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=766866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=766866"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=766866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}