According to the conventional view, the attitude towards precedent is one of the most important differences between common law and civil law systems. This paper argues that the phenomenon of overruling as practised both by the Belgian Cour de cassation and the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords casts doubt on the cogency of such a perception. As a matter of fact, the Belgian and English systems exhibit a very similar jurisprudence with respect to departure from existing case law as practised at the highest level in the judiciary. This approach challenges the appearance that formal definitions provide for the difference in attitude towards precedent between the two countries and more broadly between common law and civil law systems, without denying the existence of a distinctive legal culture.
Accueil >
Diverging Legal Traditions But Similar Jurisprudence of Overuling : The Case of the House of Lords and the Belgian Cour de Cassation
Publications récentes
-
Third Party Intervention Submitted to the European Court of Human Rights in XY v….
In February 2026, the Equality Law Clinic participated in a third-party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in… -
The EU AI Act: A Thematic Commentary
Nathan Genicot contributed to the book The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: A Thematic Commentary edited by G. Malgieri, G. González… -
L’affaire Caster Semenya: démasquer les monstres, célébrer les dieux
Au départ de l’affaire Caster Semenya, cette contribution vise à saisir comment, au nom de l’égalité des femmes et de… -
Le « profilage algorithmique » menace-t-il l’État de droit ?
Nathan Genicot a été interviewé par Guillaume Erner sur France Culture dans le cadre de la rubrique Les chantiers de…