6 ms·

Interesting. Doesn't France have a legal system that leans more towards Civil Law than Common Law? So how much legal validity does this judgement have?

formerly_proven 4y ago
This comes from their equivalent of the Supreme Court
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  No, the cour de cassation is not the equivalent of the supreme court in many ways. * It doesn't judge the constitutionality of laws. That's the constitutional court. * It doesn't judge cases related to complaints against the administration. That's for the council of state. * Its precedents don't bind lower courts, who are free to rule differently. * In France, judges are explicitly forbidden to write a judgement that seems to hold in a general manner (article 5 of the penal procedure code) - we have a much stricter separation between the legislative and judiciary. They always judge specific cases. This applies to the cour de cassation as well. It's just not useful to try and compare the US and French legal systems. They're too different.
  - occamrazor 4y ago
    Article 5 C.p.p. is about jurisdiction ov criminal and civil courts. Did you mean a different article?
    - palsecam 4y ago
      Article 5 of the civil code, I guess: « Il est défendu aux juges de prononcer par voie de disposition générale et réglementaire sur les causes qui leur sont soumises. » https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419284/2022-10-29 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
      - ohbtvz 4y ago
        Yep, that's the one I meant, sorry.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    > we have a much stricter separation between the legislative and judiciary. Could you clarify more? You also said, "In a civil law country, precedent is always subordinate to codified law." That would imply that there is less room for judges to interpret the law more freely. (In India, for example, constitutional courts can even expand or contract the law, by striking down or adding provisions to it through the power of judicial reviews.)
mytailorisrich 4y ago
This decision is de facto the Law. Indeed, this is a decision of the "Cour de Cassation", which is the highest court and which does not judge guilt in specific cases (edited to clarify), but whether the law was correctly applied. So by judging that this is a criminal offence (actually they have only confirmed previous legal decisions so it was expected) they have ruled that French Law states that this is a criminal offence, including based on jurisprudence (previous decisions). So that rather settles it.
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  The cour de cassation does judge specific cases. They don't make the law and lower courts are not bound to their precedent. I wrote a more complete explanation in a sibling comment.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    "En effet, son rôle n’est pas de rejuger les affaires. Elle juge le droit exclusivement. De ce fait, la Cour de cassation ne s’attache pas aux faits d’un arrêt ou d’un jugement, mais elle vérifie la bonne application de la loi à la décision attaquée. Autrement dit, elle ne se prononce pas sur les litiges, mais seulement sur les décisions qui concernent les litiges." [1] It only checks that the law was correctly applied, it is not an appeal where the guilt is re-assessed (that's what I meant, obviously not very clearly). [1] https://juripredis.com/la-jurisprudence-dossier/comment-definir-la-jurisprudence/quelle-est-la-jurisprudence-de-la-cour-de-cassation/#:~:text=Elle%20juge%20le%20droit%20exclusivement,d%C3%A9cisions%20qui%20concernent%20les%20litiges https://juripredis.com/la-jurisprudence-dossier/comment-defi....
ohbtvz 4y ago
It doesn't "lean more" towards civil law, it is a civil law legal system. Nevertheless, precedent ("jurisprudence") is still part of the legal framework. The cour de cassation, the highest court of appeals, has rendered a judgement about something which is ambiguous in the law. This is a judgment about a particular case in a particular situation, and judges are explicitly forbidden from writing anything in their judgment that would look like a general statement. Lower courts are independent and can render different judgments in similar cases if they interpret the law and the situation presented to them differently. So why does it matter that the cour de cassation created this precedent? Well, it's the highest court of appeal. Any lower court who judges differently sees clearly the "risk" that their judgment is appealed, passed on to the cour de cassation, overturned, and needed to be judged again. We have professional judges in France, and they recognize there is little point in wasting the State's resources on such things without good reason. But because we are in a civil law country, it is quite likely that the existing law will be clarified and supplant the precedent. In a civil law country, precedent is always subordinate to codified law.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I just recently became aware of how different the French legal system is when I started watching "Murder in Provence" and was confused when a judge himself got involved the investigation of criminal cases.

formerly_proven 4y ago

This comes from their equivalent of the Supreme Court

ohbtvz 4y ago
No, the cour de cassation is not the equivalent of the supreme court in many ways. * It doesn't judge the constitutionality of laws. That's the constitutional court. * It doesn't judge cases related to complaints against the administration. That's for the council of state. * Its precedents don't bind lower courts, who are free to rule differently. * In France, judges are explicitly forbidden to write a judgement that seems to hold in a general manner (article 5 of the penal procedure code) - we have a much stricter separation between the legislative and judiciary. They always judge specific cases. This applies to the cour de cassation as well. It's just not useful to try and compare the US and French legal systems. They're too different.
- occamrazor 4y ago
  Article 5 C.p.p. is about jurisdiction ov criminal and civil courts. Did you mean a different article?
  - palsecam 4y ago
    Article 5 of the civil code, I guess: « Il est défendu aux juges de prononcer par voie de disposition générale et réglementaire sur les causes qui leur sont soumises. » https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006419284/2022-10-29 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
    - ohbtvz 4y ago
      Yep, that's the one I meant, sorry.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  > we have a much stricter separation between the legislative and judiciary. Could you clarify more? You also said, "In a civil law country, precedent is always subordinate to codified law." That would imply that there is less room for judges to interpret the law more freely. (In India, for example, constitutional courts can even expand or contract the law, by striking down or adding provisions to it through the power of judicial reviews.)

mytailorisrich 4y ago

This decision is de facto the Law. Indeed, this is a decision of the "Cour de Cassation", which is the highest court and which does not judge guilt in specific cases (edited to clarify), but whether the law was correctly applied. So by judging that this is a criminal offence (actually they have only confirmed previous legal decisions so it was expected) they have ruled that French Law states that this is a criminal offence, including based on jurisprudence (previous decisions). So that rather settles it.

ohbtvz 4y ago
The cour de cassation does judge specific cases. They don't make the law and lower courts are not bound to their precedent. I wrote a more complete explanation in a sibling comment.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  "En effet, son rôle n’est pas de rejuger les affaires. Elle juge le droit exclusivement. De ce fait, la Cour de cassation ne s’attache pas aux faits d’un arrêt ou d’un jugement, mais elle vérifie la bonne application de la loi à la décision attaquée. Autrement dit, elle ne se prononce pas sur les litiges, mais seulement sur les décisions qui concernent les litiges." [1] It only checks that the law was correctly applied, it is not an appeal where the guilt is re-assessed (that's what I meant, obviously not very clearly). [1] https://juripredis.com/la-jurisprudence-dossier/comment-definir-la-jurisprudence/quelle-est-la-jurisprudence-de-la-cour-de-cassation/#:~:text=Elle%20juge%20le%20droit%20exclusivement,d%C3%A9cisions%20qui%20concernent%20les%20litiges https://juripredis.com/la-jurisprudence-dossier/comment-defi....

ohbtvz 4y ago

It doesn't "lean more" towards civil law, it is a civil law legal system. Nevertheless, precedent ("jurisprudence") is still part of the legal framework. The cour de cassation, the highest court of appeals, has rendered a judgement about something which is ambiguous in the law. This is a judgment about a particular case in a particular situation, and judges are explicitly forbidden from writing anything in their judgment that would look like a general statement. Lower courts are independent and can render different judgments in similar cases if they interpret the law and the situation presented to them differently. So why does it matter that the cour de cassation created this precedent? Well, it's the highest court of appeal. Any lower court who judges differently sees clearly the "risk" that their judgment is appealed, passed on to the cour de cassation, overturned, and needed to be judged again. We have professional judges in France, and they recognize there is little point in wasting the State's resources on such things without good reason. But because we are in a civil law country, it is quite likely that the existing law will be clarified and supplant the precedent. In a civil law country, precedent is always subordinate to codified law.

webmobdev 4y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I just recently became aware of how different the French legal system is when I started watching "Murder in Provence" and was confused when a judge himself got involved the investigation of criminal cases.