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
-
Exploring the boundaries of AI regulatory sandboxes under the AI Act: Flexibility and real-world…
Nathan Genicot has published with Thiago Guimaraes Moraes an article in Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance entitled “Exploring… -
Research Handbook on European Anti-Discrimination Law
Edited by Colm O’Cinneide (University College London), Julie Ringelheim (UCLouvain) and Iyiola Solanke (University of Oxford), this Research Handbook (Edward… -
Qu’est-ce qu’une femme ?
Le 16 avril 2025, la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni a jugé que « les termes ‘femme’ et ‘sexe’ dans la loi… -
Le tournant des méthodes empiriques en droit ?
Frédéric Audren Audren a rédigé la conclusion générale du volume intitulé “Le tournant des méthodes empiriques en droit ?” dirigé…