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
-
From Blueprint to Reality: Implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes under the AI Act
Nathan Genicot has written a report on the legal framework for AI regulatory sandboxes under the AI Act. AI regulatory sandboxes… -
La valeur fondamentale de l’égalité des genres comme motif de protection internationale – analyse…
La valeur fondamentale de l’égalité des genres comme motif de protection internationale – analyse de l’arrêt K.L. c. Staatssecretaris van… -
Recension de ‘The Ordinal Society’
Recension dans La vie des idées par Nathan Genicot du livre The Ordinal Society de Marion Fourcade et Kieran Healy… -
To Score Is to Decide. About the SCHUFA case
Nathan Genicot has published an article, To Score Is to Decide. About the SCHUFA case, on the Verfassungsblog. The paper looks…