> either something is codified in form of (non-copyrtightable) parlimentary bill or executive order, or is not a law at all. This isn't effectively true in pra

> either something is codified in form of (non-copyrtightable) parlimentary bill or executive order, or is not a law at all. This isn't effectively true in practise. While there is no foundation of stare decisis in Civil law, there is the commonly recognised concept of jurisprudence constante (stable law). That is: judges will often look to precedent in making decisions, but are not bound by it. A pattern of past decisions will often be highly persuasive because there is interest in not interpreting the law arbitrarily, and courts tend not to want to make a decision they expect will be overturned on appeal.