21:I[146728,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 22:I[498718,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 23:I[98564,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 25:I[447961,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 26:I[961786,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 28:I[603421,["/_next/static/chunks/116_os_qb8zky.js","/_next/static/chunks/050hmfmbb_yl9.js","/_next/static/chunks/0pjboplmb~k09.js","/_next/static/chunks/0azh54munae2i.js","/_next/static/chunks/0.xcm_mw~_xnr.js"],"default"] 27:T4d8,

Faits

resultats

C/11402/2012

ACJC/171/2013

(3)

du 08.02.2013

Considérants

sur OTPI/1055/2012 ( SP

)

, CONFIRME

Descripteurs :

; CAS CLAIR ; DROIT CONSTITUTIONNEL À LA PROTECTION DE LA BONNE FOI ; PREUVE À FUTUR ; EXPERTISE

Normes :

CST.5.3. CPC.237.2. CPC.308.2. CPC.183.1

Résumé :

Requête de preuve à futur admise - Décision incidente au sens de l'art. 237 CPC - Indication inexacte des voies de recours - Expertise