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
-
Scoring the European citizen in the AI era
Nathan Genicot has published an article in Computer Law & Security Review entitled « Scoring the European citizen in the AI… -
IA : et si vous demandiez une augmentation pour utiliser ChatGPT ?
Une nouvelle étude dirigée par David Restrepo Amariles met en lumière les effets de la “Shadow Adoption” de l’IA générative… -
Du cas à l’affaire Caster Semenya : (en)cadrer la question de l’égalité des sexes
Isabelle Rorive a participé au dossier thématique Droit genre et sport publié dans le deuxième numéro d’Intersections – Revue semestrielle… -
Le droit à l’intégrité corporelle des personnes intersexuées
Dans l’ouvrage Les droits des personnes intersexes (Larcier-Intersentia, 2024), Charly Derave, Marie Goffaux, Anne-Catherine Rasson et Isabelle Rorive ont rédigé…