{"id":872566,"date":"2026-05-10T00:20:37","date_gmt":"2026-05-09T22:20:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/"},"modified":"2026-05-10T00:20:40","modified_gmt":"2026-05-09T22:20:40","slug":"cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/","title":{"rendered":"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>N\u00b0 42 \/ 15. du 21.5.2015.<\/p>\n<p>Num\u00e9ro 3495 du registre.<\/p>\n<p>Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeudi, vingt et un mai deux mille quinze.<\/p>\n<p>Composition:<\/p>\n<p>Georges SANTER, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Edm\u00e9e CONZEMIUS, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Ir\u00e8ne FOLSCHEID, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Romain LUDOVICY, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de cassation, Elisabeth WEYRICH, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour d\u2019appel, Simone FLAMMANG, avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, Viviane PROBST, greffier \u00e0 la Cour.<\/p>\n<p>Entre:<\/p>\n<p>la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e SOC1), \u00e9tablie et ayant son si\u00e8ge social \u00e0 (\u2026), repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par son g\u00e9rant actuellement en fonction, inscrite au registre de commerce et des soci\u00e9t\u00e9s sous le num\u00e9ro (\u2026),<\/p>\n<p>demanderesse en cassation,<\/p>\n<p>comparant par Ma\u00eetre G\u00e9rard A. TURPEL, avocat \u00e0 la Cour, en l\u2019\u00e9tude duquel domicile est \u00e9lu, et:<\/p>\n<p>1)A), n\u00e9 le (\u2026), (\u2026), demeurant \u00e0 (\u2026),<\/p>\n<p>2)B), n\u00e9e le (\u2026), (\u2026), demeurant \u00e0 (\u2026),<\/p>\n<p>d\u00e9fendeurs en cassation,<\/p>\n<p>comparant par Ma\u00eetre Christiane GABBANA, avocat \u00e0 la Cour, en l\u2019\u00e9tude de laquelle domicile est \u00e9lu,<\/p>\n<p>en pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019expert C), demeurant \u00e0 (\u2026).<\/p>\n<p>=======================================================<\/p>\n<p>LA COUR DE CASSATION :<\/p>\n<p>2 Vu l\u2019arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9 rendu le 28 mai 2014 sous le num\u00e9ro 40218 du r\u00f4le par la Cour d\u2019appel du Grand-Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg, sept i\u00e8me chambre, si\u00e9geant en mati\u00e8re de r\u00e9cusation ;<\/p>\n<p>Vu le m\u00e9moire en cassation signifi\u00e9 les 17 et 25 septembre 2014 par la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e SOC1) \u00e0 A), \u00e0 B) et \u00e0 C), d\u00e9pos\u00e9 au greffe de la Cour le 6 octobre 2014 ;<\/p>\n<p>Vu le m\u00e9moire en r\u00e9ponse signifi\u00e9 le 11 novembre 2014 par A) et B) \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e SOC1) , d\u00e9pos\u00e9 au greffe de la Cour le 14 novembre 2014 ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le rapport du conseiller Edm\u00e9e CONZEMIUS et sur les conclusions de l\u2019avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral Marie- Jeanne KAPPWEILER ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur les faits :<\/p>\n<p>Attendu, selon l\u2019arr\u00eat attaqu\u00e9, que le juge des r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9s pr\u00e8s le tribunal d\u2019arrondissement de Luxembourg avait d\u00e9clar\u00e9 irrecevable au fond la demande en r\u00e9cusation de l\u2019expert C) introduite par les \u00e9poux A) et B) dans le cadre d\u2019une affaire les opposant \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e SOC1) ; que sur appel, la Cour d\u2019appel, apr\u00e8s avoir dit non fond\u00e9e la requ\u00eate en relev\u00e9 de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance, a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 l\u2019appel irrecevable ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le premier moyen de cassation :<\/p>\n<p>tir\u00e9 \u00ab de la violation, sinon de la fausse application de l\u2019article 535 du Nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile,<\/p>\n<p>en ce que l\u2019arr\u00eat confirmatif attaqu\u00e9 a, en d\u00e9clarant l\u2019appel irrecevable, d\u00e9bout\u00e9 la demanderesse en cassation du chef de sa demande en r\u00e9cusation de l\u2019expert C) ,<\/p>\n<p>au motif que &lt;&lt; le libell\u00e9 : &lt; dans les quinze jours \u2019\u2019du jugement \u2019\u2019 &gt; ne saurait se rapporter qu\u2019\u00e0 la date o\u00f9 la d\u00e9cision intervient, qui est celle de son prononc\u00e9 &gt;&gt;,<\/p>\n<p>alors qu\u2019en d\u00e9cidant ainsi, la Cour d\u2019appel a ajout\u00e9 une condition \u00e0 la loi qui n\u2019est nullement exig\u00e9e par le texte susvis\u00e9 \u00bb ;<\/p>\n<p>Mais attendu que les juges d\u2019appel ont fait une correcte application de l\u2019article cit\u00e9 au moyen qui est \u00e0 interpr\u00e9ter en ce sens qu\u2019il fait courir le d\u00e9lai d\u2019appel \u00e0 partir du prononc\u00e9 du jugement ;<\/p>\n<p>Que le moyen n\u2019est pas fond\u00e9 ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur le deuxi\u00e8me moyen de cassation :<\/p>\n<p>tir\u00e9 \u00ab de la violation, sinon de la fausse application de l\u2019article 535 du Nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile,<\/p>\n<p>en ce que l\u2019arr\u00eat confirmatif attaqu\u00e9 a, en d\u00e9clarant l\u2019appel irrecevable, d\u00e9bout\u00e9 la demanderesse en cassation du chef de sa demande en r\u00e9cusation de l\u2019expert C) ,<\/p>\n<p>au motif que &lt;&lt; sauf \u00e0 ajouter \u00e0 la loi, l\u2019appel entreprenant une d\u00e9cision de r\u00e9cusation doit, par cons\u00e9quent, aux termes m\u00eames de l\u2019article 535 du Nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile, \u00eatre interjet\u00e9 dans les 15 jours de la d\u00e9cision intervenant sur r\u00e9cusation, et non dans les quinze jours de ses signification ou notification (cf. analogie Encyclop\u00e9die Dalloz, V\u00b0 R\u00e9cusation, no 86, \u00e9dition 1956) &gt;&gt;,<\/p>\n<p>alors qu\u2019en d\u00e9cidant ainsi, la Cour d\u2019appel a m\u00e9connu les dispositions de l\u2019article 535 du Nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile qui pr\u00e9voit une obligation de motivation de l\u2019appel en mati\u00e8re de r\u00e9cusation \u00bb ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que la demanderesse en cassation reproche \u00e0 la Cour d\u2019appel d\u2019avoir d\u00e9clar\u00e9 l\u2019appel irrecevable nonobstant le fait qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait dans l\u2019impossibilit\u00e9 de motiver son recours, faute de notification du jugement intervenu ;<\/p>\n<p>Mais attendu que sous le couvert de la violation de l\u2019article 535 du Nouveau code de proc\u00e9dure civile, le moyen ne tend qu\u2019\u00e0 remettre en cause l\u2019arr\u00eat rendu par la Cour d\u2019appel dans le cadre de la demande en relev\u00e9 de d\u00e9ch\u00e9ance ;<\/p>\n<p>Que le moyen ne saurait \u00eatre accueilli ;<\/p>\n<p>Sur les indemnit\u00e9s de proc\u00e9dure :<\/p>\n<p>Attendu que l\u2019enti\u00e8ret\u00e9 des d\u00e9pens de l\u2019instance en cassation \u00e9tant \u00e0 charge de la demanderesse en cassation, sa demande en allocation d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure est \u00e0 rejeter ;<\/p>\n<p>Attendu qu\u2019il serait in\u00e9quitable de laisser \u00e0 charge des d\u00e9fendeurs en cassation l\u2019int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 des frais expos\u00e9s en instance de cassation et non compris dans les d\u00e9pens ; que la Cour de cassation fixe l\u2019indemnit\u00e9 \u00e0 leur allouer \u00e0 la somme de 2.000.- euros ;<\/p>\n<p>Par ces motifs :<\/p>\n<p>rejette le pourvoi;<\/p>\n<p>rejette la demande de la demanderesse en cassation en allocation d\u2019une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure ;<\/p>\n<p>4 condamne la demanderesse en cassation \u00e0 payer aux d\u00e9fendeurs en cassation une indemnit\u00e9 de proc\u00e9dure de 2.000.- euros ;<\/p>\n<p>la condamne aux d\u00e9pens de l&#039;instance en cassation et en ordonne la distraction au profit de Ma\u00eetre Christiane GABBANA, avocat \u00e0 la Cour, sur ses affirmations de droit.<\/p>\n<p>La lecture du pr\u00e9sent arr\u00eat a \u00e9t\u00e9 faite en la susdite audience publique par Monsieur le pr\u00e9sident Georges SANTER, en pr\u00e9sence de Madame Simone FLAMMANG, avocat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, et de M adame Viviane PROBST, greffier \u00e0 la Cour.<\/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\/20240806-143558\/20150521-3495a-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 42 \/ 15. du 21.5.2015. Num\u00e9ro 3495 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeudi, vingt et un mai deux mille quinze. Composition: Georges SANTER, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Edm\u00e9e CONZEMIUS, 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":[78562],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[8424],"kji_language":[7733],"class_list":["post-872566","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-luxembourg","kji_court-cour-de-cassation","kji_year-78562","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-cassation","kji_language-francais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.6 (Yoast SEO v27.6) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495 - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"N\u00b0 42 \/ 15. du 21.5.2015. Num\u00e9ro 3495 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeudi, vingt et un mai deux mille quinze. Composition: Georges SANTER, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Edm\u00e9e CONZEMIUS, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de\u2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-05-09T22:20:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\\\/\",\"name\":\"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-09T22:20:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-09T22:20:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495 - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495","og_description":"N\u00b0 42 \/ 15. du 21.5.2015. Num\u00e9ro 3495 du registre. Audience publique de la Cour de cassation du Grand- Duch\u00e9 de Luxembourg du jeudi, vingt et un mai deux mille quinze. Composition: Georges SANTER, pr\u00e9sident de la Cour, Edm\u00e9e CONZEMIUS, conseiller \u00e0 la Cour de\u2026","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","article_modified_time":"2026-05-09T22:20:40+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"5 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/","name":"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-09T22:20:37+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-09T22:20:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/cour-de-cassation-21-mai-2015-n-0521-3495\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Cour de cassation, 21 mai 2015, n\u00b0 0521-3495"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","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\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/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\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/872566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=872566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=872566"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=872566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}