تعليق على قرار محكمة التمييز بشأن الشكلية في عقد المساطحة : دراسة مقارنة

الملخص EN

In this commentary, we address the presentation of the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation in its judgment numbered (268 in the year 2007), considering that the Musataha contract (Usufruct )that was not registered in the Real Estate Registration Department is a valid contract contrary to the provisions of the Real Estate Registration Law No.

43 of 1971, as well as the Comparative Law which considers this contract to be Aynyia and one of the formality contracts, for which it is required to be registered in the Real Estate Registration Department, otherwise the contract is not considered valid.

If the Court of Cassation goes in the direction of attributing them to the provisions of Civil Law No.

(40) for the year 1951 amended, the existence of the provisions of the Real Estate Registration Law stipulates that there is no doubt that the (Usufruct) Musataha contract is a Formality contract, i.e.

it must be registered with the Real Estate Registration Department.

It is noted that the Real Estate Registration Law was issued after the provisions of the Civil Law were issued in terms of date.