Article 138Jugement sur transaction, appel limité

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2274/2568 (2025)

   Where a compromise term is not itself unlawful, a judgment given on it is not contrary to a public order law, so no appeal lies under the Section 138(2) exception.

   The court held that an agreement letting the creditor charge interest on the whole outstanding principal did not offend Civil and Commercial Code Section 224/1, so the consent judgment did not violate a public order law and could not be appealed under the Section 138(2) exception.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1201/2565 (2022)

   A compromise made before the court under Section 138, checked by the parties without objection, results in a judgment by consent that becomes final and binds the parties.

   The court found no bad faith in making the compromise or enforcing it. The settlement was made under Section 138 before the court, the parties raised no objection that any term breached the law, and after the consent judgment none of the defendants appealed on fraud or illegality, so the judgment became final and binding.

3. Arrêt n° 308/2563 de la Cour suprême (2020)

   Where the parties agree to stake the case on a defined question, the decision on that question under Section 138 binds them according to the terms of the wager agreement.

   The parties agreed to be bound by how a defined ownership question was decided. The Supreme Court held that its ruling matched the agreed question under Section 138, so the parties were bound by the wager agreement and the transfer of the disputed land had to be treated as lawful.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.