Abstract
The supreme courts of France, the Netherlands and Belgium belong historically to the French cassation model. In recent years, these courts have witnessed profound changes that endanger this heritage. The reforms of their procedure and competence following years of case overload and backlogs pertain to some of the core features of the cassation model. The introduction of a preliminary procedure, the imposition of a stricter access regime, the use of a more elaborate reasoning style and the possibility to decide on the merits indicate that these courts of the cassation model are transforming their very nature from general guardians of the law into supreme appellate courts. This contribution discusses these reforms of the supreme courts of France, the Netherlands and Belgium and sheds light on their evolution away from the traditional cassation model.
I am indebted to prof. dr. Dirk Heirbaut, prof. dr. Piet Taelman, dr. Sebastiaan Vandenbogaerde and Marko Bratkovic for their much appreciated comments on this text. Moreover, I would like to thank all participants of the PPJ 2017 conference, and in particular its organizers, for a week of fruitful discussions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The Ordonnnance de Blois of 1579 is widely considered the birth of the modern cassation mechanism (Boulet-Santel 1990, 6).
- 3.
More precisely by the Decree of 27 November 1790.
- 4.
This unequivocal mission is also emphasized in the alternative name that was proposed for the institution, namely the Conseil national pour la conservation des lois. See the Archives Parlementaires (1885, 337). See in this regard also Prugnon: ‘[La cassation] est pour la loi ce que l’appel est pour le plaideur’ (Archives Parlementaires 1885, 330).
- 5.
Article 1 of the Decree of 27 November 1790 reads as follows: ‘Il y aura un Tribunal de cassation établi auprès du Corps législatif.’ The meaning of this last phrase has been much debated. Did the Tribunal belong to the judiciary, or was it rather part of the legislative branch of government? See for a discussion Halpérin (1990, 28–30) and Beauthier (1999, 38–41). Halpérin is of the opinion that this phrase merely settles the discussion on the location of the newly established institution in favour of Paris, which houses the seat of the Assemblée nationale.
- 6.
Article 3 Decree of 27 November 1790.
- 7.
This evolution was initially fuelled by the lack of (uniform) legislation (Bloquet 2017, 265).
- 8.
See e.g. Projet de Code civile 1801, xix.
- 9.
- 10.
This is least true for the Dutch Cassation Court, which received at its inception in 1838 already some updates to the original cassation model. The Netherlands has, moreover, a more troublesome relationship with this heritage. In 1909, already the Nederlandse Juristenvereniging, the Dutch Society of Jurists, proposed to abolish the cassation mechanism completely (Haak 2008, 50; Veegens et al. 2015, 56, 57).
- 11.
The judiciary ‘finds’ these principles (Marchal 2014, 27, 28). This challenges the legalistic underpinnings of the Cassation Court and highlights its normative law-shaping, independent of the text of the law.
- 12.
Decree n° 79-941 of 7 November 1979.
- 13.
Article 604 French Code of Civil Procedure.
- 14.
These general principles of law are often used by the French Court of Cassation to limit or alter the field of application of a legal provision. See Gridel (2002). This practice is blatantly at odds with the origin of the cassation model.
- 15.
Article 1020 French Code of Civil Procedure. See also Article 17 of the Decree of 27 November 1790.
- 16.
Decree n° 2008-484 of 22 May 2008.
- 17.
Act of 20 June 1963.
- 18.
See Article 79 Dutch Act of Judicial Organization. For an overview, see Veegens (1965, 182–189).
- 19.
Article 608 Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 20.
It is the court itself that decides what counts as such a general principle of law. See Verougstraete (2010, 451, 452).
- 21.
The legal provision reads: ‘Le Tribunal de cassation n’est point en effet un degré d’appel ni de juridiction ordinaire, et il n’est institué que pour ramener perpétuellement à l’exécution de la loi toutes les parties de l’ordre judiciaire qui tendraient à s’en écarter: le but de cette institution suffit pour expliquer sa compétence.’ The Decree of 29 September 1791. See also the intervention of Robespierre and Chabroud in the parliamentary debate leading to the Decree of 27 November 1790 (Archives Parlementaires 1885, 336–338).
- 22.
Le Chapelier during the parliamentary debate leading to the Decree of 27 November 1790: ‘De quoi s’agit-il en effet? De comparer l’arrêt rendu avec la loi’ (Archives Parlementaires 1885, 485).
- 23.
Originally, the Tribunal de cassation was composed of two chambers: the bureau des requêtes and the chambre de cassation. The latter was split up into a civil chamber and criminal chamber by the Decree of 29 September 1793 (Tarbé 1840, 27).
- 24.
Article 5 of the Act of 10–15 April 1792 abolished this preliminary step in criminal cases.
- 25.
- 26.
In France and Belgium such a specialized bar has always existed. In the Netherlands, this is the case only since 2012 (Verkerk and Van Rhee 2017, 92, 93).
- 27.
Augmenting the number of justices, creating new chambers or hiring clerks are institutional measures that have been taken in the past in all courts. The disadvantage of these solutions is that with greater numbers comes an increased risk of contradictory decisions in the court’s case law (Canivet 2005, 6, 7).
- 28.
See in this context also Zuckerman (2013, 2–5).
- 29.
The bureau, later chambre des requêtes, was suspended in 1947. This is perceived as one of the main reasons for the later case overload of the court (Corpart 1995, 4).
- 30.
Act No. 81-759 of 6 August 1981.
- 31.
See Article L431-1 French Code of Judicial Organization. The first president or president of the chamber may also decide to send the case immediately to the larger panel. Criminal cases are normally heard by a panel composed of five justices. They can, however, refer the case to the formation restreinte (Amrani-Mekki 2005, 21).
- 32.
Act No. 2001-539 of 25 June 2001.
- 33.
Article 1014 French Code of Civil Procedure.
- 34.
- 35.
Decree n° 2014-1338 of 6 November 2014.
- 36.
The use of the term ‘especially reasoned’ (spécialement motivée) is quite ironic, given the fact that regular decisions of the court do not exactly excel in their reasoning either. See Sect. 3.5.1.
- 37.
- 38.
Despite the fact that the term has been dropped from the provision, it remains in use for the purpose of describing the system.
- 39.
- 40.
Amendement présenté par le Gouvernement, n° CL166, Assemblée nationale, 30 April 2016, 2.
- 41.
Amendement présenté par le Gouvernement, n° CL166, Assemblée nationale, 30 April 2016, 2.
- 42.
Act of 21 June 1986. See Article 75 Act on Judicial Organization. The competence of the limited panel is understood as pertaining to uncomplicated cases (Verkerk and Van Rhee 2017, 90).
- 43.
Act of 16 June 1988.
- 44.
See also Sect. 3.5.2.
- 45.
- 46.
Act of 15 March 2012. The selection mechanism as enacted differs considerably from that put forward by the Hammerstein Commission. See Van Der Haegen (2015, 1266).
- 47.
This memorandum of explanation fails, however, to define what these core missions are, mentioning rather all missions of the court. Teuben (2012, 102) argues that these ‘core missions’ to which the memorandum refers are the court’s tasks of providing legal uniformity and development, and to a lesser extent legal protection.
- 48.
Article 80a(3) Act on Judicial Organization.
- 49.
Article 80a(4) Act on Judicial Organization.
- 50.
Act of 6 May 1997.
- 51.
Article 1105bis Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 52.
Act of 10 April 2014.
- 53.
Article 1105bis(2) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 54.
Act of 14 February 2014.
- 55.
Article 433(1) Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure.
- 56.
Article 433(2) Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure.
- 57.
Article L441-1 French Code of Judicial Organization. In criminal cases only since 2002 (Organic Act No. 2001-539 of 25 June 2001). The field of application is, however, limited in the criminal law area: the Court of Assizes cannot ask for an avis, nor can a court in cases dealing with pre-trial detention.
- 58.
The overarching aim was to combat the ever-growing backlog in the court (Darnanville 2001, 416).
- 59.
- 60.
Act No. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016.
- 61.
Article L441-2 French Code of Judicial Organization. If, however, the question belongs ratione materiae to the competence of more than one chamber, it is heard by a mixed panel. If a demande pour avis raises a question of principle, the plenary assembly will hear it. The plenary assembly comprises the first president and the president, the dean and a justice of each chamber of the court. See Article L421-5 French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 62.
Such disparities have occurred in the past (Ferrand 2016, 2417).
- 63.
The question must be of a general and abstract nature and must not require any inquiry into the factual circumstances of the case. See Cour de cassation 23 May 2016, avis n° V 16-700.02, http://www.courdecassation.fr, conclusion of AG Vassallo, 17–20. Accessed 7 June 2018.
- 64.
It is unclear how the court defines novel. In one instance, the court dismissed a case relating to an old but unresolved controversy dating back to the original Code civil of 1804. Cour de cassation 14 June 1993, avis n° 0930006 P, http://www.courdecassation.fr. Accessed 7 June 2018. In a different decision, the court admitted a preliminary question even though it pertained to legislation over 20 years old. Cour de cassation 10 January 2000, avis n° 02020001 P, http://www.courdecassation.fr. Accessed 7 June 2018. See also Buffet (2000, 5, 6).
- 65.
See, however, Sect. 3.5.1.
- 66.
Albeit with the Service de Documentation et d’Etudes as intermediary.
- 67.
Act of 9 February 2012. Since 1963, the mechanism of sprongcassatie exists, comparable to the UK’s leapfrog appeal, in which parties can agree after the first instance proceedings to bring their case directly to the Hoge Raad, bypassing the court of appeal. This differs from the prejudiciële vraagstelling, as it requires both a finished first instance procedure and the assent of the parties, and is solely aimed at cutting short the length of proceedings (Memorie van Toelichting 1951, 5; Veegens et al. 2015, 118–121; Den Dekker and Van Den Eshof 2015, 108). See Article 398 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 68.
Article 27ga–27ge Dutch State Taxes Act, as introduced by the Act of 23 December 2015.
- 69.
- 70.
Article 392(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 71.
Hoge Raad 8 February 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY4889, 3.1.
- 72.
Article 394(1) and Article 392(6) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and Article 27ge Dutch State Taxes Act.
- 73.
Article 393(2) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. The court has also allowed amici curiae to intervene in a cassation in the interest of procedural law as well (Hoge Raad, 6 June 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1342).
- 74.
Article IV 76 Belgian Code of Business Law. See for an extensive discussion: Bossuyt (2013).
- 75.
Article 3 of the Decree of 27 November 1790: ‘Sous aucun prétexte et en aucun cas, le Tribunal de cassation ne pourra connaître du fond des affaires. Après avoir cassé les procédures ou le jugement, il renverra le fond des affaires aux tribunaux qui devront en connaître, ainsi qu’il sera fixé ci-après.’.
- 76.
Article L431-4 French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 77.
- 78.
Act No. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016.
- 79.
- 80.
Article L411-3(3) French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 81.
Article L411-3(2) French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 82.
Act No. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016.
- 83.
Amendement présenté par le Gouvernement, n° CL165, Assemblée nationale, 30 April 2016, 1.
- 84.
Such discretion does not exist in Germany, where §563 of the Zivilprozessordnung requires the Bundesgerichtshof to rule on the merits whenever the conditions are met.
- 85.
Amendement présenté par le Gouvernement, n° CL165, Assemblée nationale, 30 April 2016, 1.
- 86.
See Boré and Boré (2015, 735–738) with regard to the competence of the court upon remittal.
- 87.
Article 1015 French Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Decree n° 2017-396 of 24 March 2017.
- 88.
Article L431-6 French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 89.
Article L431-4(2) French Code of Judicial Organization.
- 90.
The legislation on referral was thoroughly reformed with the Act of 20 June 1963.
- 91.
Article 420 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Although the Code stipulates this to be the standard modus operandi, it rarely happens in practice (Dempsey 2012, 1).
- 92.
Article 421 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 93.
- 94.
For an overview of case law, see Veegens et al. (2015, 407–410).
- 95.
Article 419(3) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 96.
See Hoge Raad 30 June 1989, ECLI:NL:HR:AD0843, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1989, 769.
- 97.
Article 422a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. This has been the case since 1838 (Veegens 1965, 177).
- 98.
See Article 423 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 99.
Article 424 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
- 100.
Article 147 of the Belgian Constitution.
- 101.
Cfr. the decision of the court in which it considers remittal to be legally prescribed (Hof van Cassatie 1 May 1888, Pasicrisie 1888, I, 231).
- 102.
- 103.
Act of 10 April 2014.
- 104.
Article 1111(5) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 105.
Article 435 Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure, as changed by the Act of 14 February 2014.
- 106.
Act of 6 July 2017. This rectified an anomaly created by the 2014 change that made it possible for the court to rule on the costs if it decided not to remit, although there was no provision allowing the court to refrain from remitting (Wetsontwerp houdende vereenvoudiging, harmonisering, informatisering en modernisering van bepalingen van burgerlijk recht en van burgerlijk procesrecht alsook van het notariaat, en houdende diverse bepalingen inzake justitie, Amendementen, Kamer 2016–2017, 2259/003, 37). However, there is also no provision that explicitly stipulates that the court must always remit after annulment. See Verougstraete (2010, 454, 455).
- 107.
Article 1109/1(2) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 108.
Article 1097(3) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure.
- 109.
Article 1110(1) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure as changed by the Act of 6 July 2017. In criminal cases, the court already commanded such leeway since the Act of 14 February 2014 (Article 435 Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure).
- 110.
See also Verougstraete (2010, 456, 457) in this regard.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
See Article 1110(4) Belgian Code of Civil Procedure and Article 435(2) Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure.
- 114.
The only provision in the Decree of 27 November 1790 dealing with the content of the judgements of the Tribunal is Article 17, which reads as follows: ‘L’intitulé du jugement de cassation portera toujours, avec les noms des parties, l’objet de leur demande, et le dispositif contiendra le texte de la loi ou des lois sur lesquelles la décision sera appuyée.’.
- 115.
- 116.
The theory goes that the drawbacks of maintaining this façade are remedied by the more elaborate reasoning in the opinion of the Advocate-General, in an annotation of a law professor or in a note in the annual report of the court. This theory is, however, flawed, as the first two can at best only make an informed guess at the court’s motives, and the latter can only hold true for a small minority of decisions. See Touffait and Tunc (1974, 493), Libchaber (2000), Verougstraete (2000, 1070, 1071) and Adams (2009, 1509).
- 117.
See inter alia Cour de cassation 4 January 2016, avis n° 16001, http://www.courdecassation.fr. Accessed 7 June 2018; Cour de cassation 22 March 2016, n° 14-14218, http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr. Accessed 7 June 2018. The court also gives two other examples on its website: http://www.courdecassation.fr/cour_cassation_1/reforme_cour_7109/quelques_illustrations_8204/. Accessed 7 June 2018.
- 118.
- 119.
Article 431-3-1 French Code of Judicial Organization. This reform sanctioned a previous practice of the court (Encinas de Munagorri 2005).
- 120.
Article 432-1 French Code of Judicial Organization. See also Ferrand (2016, 2416, 2417).
- 121.
Act No. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016.
- 122.
The court translated a decision of the Hoge Raad into French to serve as an example of a richer reasoning style (Commission de réflexion 2017, 19).
- 123.
See also above under Sect. 3.2.2.
- 124.
See Soetaert (1979) for an overview of the old structure.
- 125.
Before 2006, the court’s decisions formed one long sentence, each consideration starting with the infamous attendu que clause (‘whereas’).
- 126.
See inter alia Hof van Cassatie 21 June 1928, Pasicrisie, 1928, 200; Hof van Cassatie 27 September 1928, Pasicrisie 1928, 235; Hof van Cassatie 3 February 1938, Pasicrisie 1938, 33.
- 127.
Hof van Cassatie 24 July 2007, P.07.0959.N, referring and overruling Cass. 6 June 2007, P.07.0689.F, and Hof van Cassatie 15 October 2009, C.09.0019.N, referring and overruling Hof van Cassatie 8 June 2009, S.08.0129.N. In the latter case, this was done by mentioning that the opinion of the Advocate-General, which was not followed by the court, was based on that previous, now overruled, decision. See Verstraelen (2015, 42).
- 128.
See Hof van Cassatie 12 June 2015, F.13.0163.N; Hof van Cassatie 3 April 2017, C.15.0508.N. Interestingly enough, the 2015 decision did not overturn the court’s previous case law, as that had already been done in two earlier decisions of the French-speaking section (Hof van Cassatie 11 September 2014, F.13.0053.F and Hof van Cassatie 4 June 2015, F.14.0165.F). In fact, the Dutch-speaking section of the court merely made clear in its June 12 decision that which was only implicitly said in the earlier decisions (Verougstraete 2016, 455).
- 129.
See already Tunc (1978a, 434).
- 130.
For an example, see Cass., 4 December 2013, N° 12-26066, in which the court discarded a provision of the Code civil because its application would infringe Article 6 ECHR given the factual circumstances of the case. See also Zenati (2016).
- 131.
See Sect. 3.3.1.
References
Adams M (2009) De argumentatieve en motiveringspraktijk van hoogste rechters: rechtsvergelijkende beschouwingen. Rechtskundig Weekblad 72:1499–1510
Amrani-Mekki S (2005) Les textes organisant la non-admission des pourvois en cassation en droit français. In: Amrani-Mekki S, Cadiet L (eds) La sélection des pourvois à la Cour de cassation. Economica, Paris, pp 19–31
Archives Parlementaires de 1787 à 1860 [X (1885)]: recueil complet des débats législatifs et politiques des Chambres françaises. Première série, 1787 à 1799, XX. Imprimerie Paul Dupont, Paris
Asser W (2011) Van selectie achter de poort naar selectie aan de poort. In: Hol A, Giessen I, Kirsten F (eds) De Hoge Raad in 2025. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 71–92
Barkhuysen T, Schuurmans Y (2013) Een prejudiciële procedure in het bestuursrecht? Ars aequi 62:736–739
Bartholémy J (2000) Le droit au pourvoi. In: Guinchard S, Pluyette G (eds) Le juge entre deux millénaires: mélanges offerts à Pierre Drai. Dalloz, Paris, pp 185–202
Beauthier R (1999) La lente conquête d’une suprématie: l’exemple de l’organe de cassation de l’Ancien régime au XIXe siècle. Revue de droit de l’ULB 10:7–99
Bell J, Boyron S, Whittaker S (2008) Principles of French law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bloquet S (2017) La loi et son interprétation à travers le Code civil (1804-1880). LGDJ, Paris
Boré J, Boré L (2003) La cassation en matière civile. Dalloz, Paris
Boré J, Boré L (2015) La cassation en matière civile. Dalloz, Paris
Bossuyt A (2013) De in de gecoördineerde wet van 15 september 2006 tot bescherming van de economische mededinging voorziene prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Cassatie. In: Ghysels J, Vanlerberghe B (eds) Prejudiciële vragen: de techniek in kaart gebracht. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 145–164
Bouckaert B (1997) Hoe gemotiveerd is cassatie?. Kluwer, Antwerpen
Boulet-Santel M (1990) La cassation sous l’Ancien régime. Le Tribunal et la Cour de cassation 1790-1990. Litec, Paris, pp 1–24
Buffet J (2000) La saisine pour avis de la Cour de cassation. Exposé devant les premiers présidents de cour d’appel. http://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/avis_15/presentation_saisine_avis_8018/loin_expose_36050.html. Accessed 7 June 2018
Canivet G (2005) Propos introductifs. In: Amrani-Mekki S, Cadiet L (eds) La sélection des pourvois à la Cour de cassation. Economica, Paris, pp 5–11
Coeuret A (1991) Loi n° 91-491 du 15 mai 1991 modifiant le code de l’organisation judiciaire et instituant la saisine pour avis de la Cour de cassation. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 89:615
Commission de réflexion de la Cour de cassation (2017) Rapport de la commission de réflexion sur la réforme de la Cour de cassation. https://www.courdecassation.fr/cour_cassation_1/reforme_cour_7109/reflexion_reforme_8182/. Accessed 7 June 2018
Cornil L (1952) La Cour de cassation: réformes mineures de la procédure. Journal des Tribunaux 71:465–474
Corpart I (1995) L’encombrement croissant de la Cour de cassation. Petites Affiches 383:4
Corstens G (2009) The legitimacy of the decisions of the Dutch supreme court in criminal cases. In: Huls N, Adams M, Bomhoff J (eds) The legitimacy of highest courts’ rulings. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 227–234
Cour de cassation (2016) Rapport Annuel 2016. https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_26/rapport_annuel_36/. Accessed 7 June 2018
Darnanville H-M (2001) La saisine pour avis du Conseil d’Etat et de la Cour de cassation. Actualité juridique droit administratif 57:416–427
Dauchy S (1988) Les voies de recours extraordinaires: proposition d’erreur et requête civile. PUF, Paris
Davids W (2009) Judicial reasoning and legitimacy of the Dutch supreme court. In: Huls N, Adams M, Bomhoff J (eds) The legitimacy of highest courts’ rulings. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 223–226
De Corte R (2002) Cassatie wordt stilaan begrijpelijk. Juristenkrant 3(49):6, 7
De Corte R (2008) De eerste 175 jaar van het Hof van Cassatie. In: Hof van Cassatie van België, 175ste verjaardag. Larcier, Brussel, pp 139–172
De Vreese A (1967) De taak van het Hof van Cassatie. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 4:567–597
Dekkers R (1955) Twee houdingen. Rechtskundig Weekblad 18:1497–1502
Dempsey N (2012) De procedure na cassatie en verwijzing. Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 20:1–8
Den Dekker G, Van Den Eshof L (2015) Sprongcassatie en de prejudiciële procedure. Tijdschrift voor de Procespraktijk 6:105–108
Deumier P (2016) Motivation des décisions de la Cour de cassation: mention de la jurisprudence constante. Recueil Dalloz 192:133
Dreyer E (2016) La main invisible de la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 192:2473
Encinas de Munagorri R (2005) L’ouverture de la Cour de cassation aux amici curiae. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 103:88
Faye E (1970) La Cour de cassation: traité de ses attributions, de sa compétence et de la procédure observée en matière civile. Librairie Edouard Duchemin, Paris
Ferrand F (2016) La Cour de cassation dans la loi de modernisation de la justice du XXI siècle. À propos de la loi n° 2016-1547 du 18 novembre 2016. La Semaine Juridique édition générale 91:2415–2418
Ferrand F (2017) The French Court of cassation: on the threshold of a quiet revolution? In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West: adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 175–206
Feteris M (2016) Les réformes à la Cour suprême des Pays-Bas: Lecture chez la Cour de cassation française. https://www.courdecassation.fr/cour_cassation_1/reforme_cour_7109/travaux_commission_8180/cassation_pays_34192.html. Accessed 7 June 2018
Fricero N (2008) Evolution des fonctions de la cassation française. In: Hof van Cassatie van België, 175ste verjaardag. Larcier, Brussel, pp 19–32
Fulchiron H (2015) Le juge et l’oracle, brèves observations sur la (non)-motivation des avis de la Cour de cassation. Receuil Dalloz 191:21
Gridel J-P (2002) La Cour de cassation française et les principes généraux du droit privé. Recueil Dalloz 178:228
Guillermet C-J (2006) La motivation des décisions de justice: la vertu pédagogique de la justice. L’Harmattan, Paris
Haak P (2008) De evolutie op lange termijn van de Nederlandse cassatieprocedure (in burgerlijke zaken) sedert 1838. In: Hof van Cassatie van België, 175ste verjaardag. Larcier, Brussel, pp 49–82
Haftel B (2016) La disparition ajournée de l’autorité des lois civiles en France. Recueil Dalloz 192:1011
Halpérin J-L (1990) Le Tribunal de cassation sous la Révolution (1790–1799). In: Le Tribunal et la Cour de cassation 1790–1990. Litec, Paris, pp 25–51
Hammerstein Commissie Normstellende Rol Hoge Raad (2008) Versterking van de cassatierechtspraak. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2007/03/27/rapport-versterking-van-de-cassatierechtspraak. Accessed 7 June 2018
Hof van Cassatie (2003) Jaarverslag 2002–2003. Belgisch Staatsblad, Brussel
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (2013) Verslag over 2013. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de-Hoge-Raad/Publicaties/Paginas/default.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2018
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (2014) Verslag over 2014. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de-Hoge-Raad/Publicaties/Paginas/default.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2018
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (2015) Verslag over 2015. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de-Hoge-Raad/Publicaties/Paginas/default.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2018
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (2016) Jaaroverzicht 2016. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de-Hoge-Raad/Publicaties/Paginas/default.aspx. Accessed 7 June 2018
Jestaz Ph, Marguénaud J-P, Jamin Ch (2014) Révolution tranquille à la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 190:2061
Jobard-Bachelier M-N, Bachelier X, Buk Lament J (2013) La technique de cassation: pourvois et arrêts en matière civile. Dalloz, Paris
Kottenhagen R (1986) Van precedent tot precedent. Gouda Quint, Arnhem
Laithier Y-M (2016) Nullité relative pour vil prix: le revirement didactique de la chambre commerciale. Revue des contrats 13:435
Lasser M (2004) Judicial deliberations: a comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Leclercq P (1953) De la Cour de cassation. In: Faurès J, De Meyer J (eds) La pensée juridique de procureur-général Paul Leclercq. Bruylant, Brussel, pp 29–91
Libchaber R (2000) Retour sur la motivation des arrêts de la Cour de cassation, et le rôle de la doctrine. Recueil Dalloz 176:679
Libchaber R (2003) La saisine pour avis, une procédure singulière dans le paysage jurisprudentiel. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 101:157
Louvel B (2015) La Cour de cassation face aux défis du XXIe siècle. https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_26/discours_tribunes_entretiens_2039/discours_2202/premier_president_7084/discours_2015_7547/face_defis_31435.html. Accessed 7 June 2018
Luxembourg F (2006) La Cour de cassation, juge du fond. Recueil Dalloz 182:2358–2362
Marchal P (2010) De stijl van de arresten van het Hof van Cassatie in civiele zaken (1832–2010). In: Dauwe B, De Gryse B, De Gryse E et al (eds) Liber Amicorum Ludovic De Gryse. Larcier, Brussel, 2010, pp 401–410
Marchal P (2014) Principes généraux du droit. Bruylant, Brussel
Marcilhacy P (1978) Rapport fait au nom de la commission des Lois constitutionnelles, de Législation, du Suffrage universel, du Règlement et d’Administration générale sur le projet de loi, adopté par l’Assemblée nationale, modifiant certaines dispositions relatives à la Cour de cassation. Sénat 1978–1979 n° 145
Martinage-Baranger R (1969) Les idées sur la cassation au XVIIIe siècle. Revue historique de droit français et étranger 47:244–290
Martyn G (2013) Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg since 1800. In: Wijffels A, Van Rhee CH (eds) European supreme courts. A portrait through history. Third Millenium Publishing, London, pp 218–227
Memorie van Toelichting (1951) Wijziging van de regelen met betrekking tot het geding in cassatie. Kamerstukken II 1950–51, 2079, n° 3
Memorie van Toelichting (1987) Wijziging van de Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie (verkorte uitspraak van de Hoge Raad). Kamerstukken II 1986–87, 19953, n° 3
Memorie van Toelichting (2010) Wijziging van de Advocatenwet, de Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie en enige andere wetten ter versterking van de cassatierechtspraak (versterking cassatierechtspraak). Kamerstukken II 2010–2011, 32576, n° 3
Molfessis N (2007) Les avis spontanés de la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 183:37
Morbée K (2013) Het Hof van Cassatie als prejudicieel Hof in fiscale zaken? Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht 14(191):192
Pinna A (2009) Filtering applications, number of judgments delivered and judicial discourse by supreme courts: some thoughts based on the French example. In: Huls N, Adams M, Bomhoff J (eds) The legitimacy of highest courts’ rulings. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 175–187
Piwnica E (2017) Commentaire des dispositions de la loi J21 relatives à la Cour de cassation. Gazette du Palais 137:76
Regout M (2017) Enkele recente ontwikkelingen in de cassatieprocedure in burgerlijke zaken. In: Hof van Cassatie, Jaarverslag 2016. https://justitie.belgium.be/nl/rechterlijke_orde/hoven_en_rechtbanken/hof_van_cassatie/documenten/jaarverslagen. Accessed 7 June 2018
Rivière H-F (1862) Revue doctrinale des variations et des progrès de la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation en matière civile, et dans l’ordre du Code napoléon. Cosse et Marchal, Paris
Rudloff M (1991) Rapport fait au nom de la commission des Lois constitutionnelles, de législation, du suffrage universel, du Règlement et d’administration générale sur le projet de loi adopté par l’Assemblée nationale, modifiant le code de l’organisation judiciaire et instituant la saisine pour avis de la Cour de Cassation. Sénat 1990–1991 n° 297
Schaffmeiste D (1988) De rol van de Hoge Raad en de ontwikkeling van het cassatierecht in strafzaken. In: De plaats van de Hoge Raad in het huidige staatsbestel. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle, pp 65–122
Schoordijk H (1988) Hoe vat(te) de burgerlijke kamer van de Hoge Raad zijn rechtsvormende taak op? In: De plaats van de Hoge Raad in het huidige staatsbestel. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle, pp 3–63
Service de Documentation, des Etudes et du Rapport de la Cour de cassation (2015) Commission de réflexion sur la réforme de la Cour: groupe de travail motivation. https://www.courdecassation.fr/cour_cassation_1/reforme_cour_7109/travaux_commission_8180/motivation_arrets_7856/cour_cassation_32581.html. Accessed 7 June 2018
Shapiro M (1981) Courts: A comparative and political analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Snijders G (2010) Kronieken: cassatie. Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 18:80–85
Soetaert R (1979) Is een cassatiearrest leesbaar? Rechtskundig Weekblad 42:2609–2624
Steiner E (2002) French legal method. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stolp M, de Groot J (2012) Een nieuwe procesvorm: het stellen van prejudiciële vragen aan de Hoge Raad (art. 392-394 nieuw Rv). Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht 23:165–170
Tarbé A-P (1840) Cour de cassation: lois et réglements à l’usage de la Cour de cassation. Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris
Tartuffo M (1998) The role of the supreme courts at the national and international level: civil law countries. In: Yessiou-Faltsi P (ed) The role of the supreme courts at the national and international level. Reports for the Thessaloniki international colloquium 21–25 May 1997. Sakkoulas Publications, Thessaloniki, pp 101–126
Terré F (2007) L’hétérarchie juridique. La création du droit jurisprudentiel: mélanges en l’honneur de Jacques Boré. Dalloz, Paris, pp 447–457
Terrier F (2013) La pratique de la procédure de non-admission à la Cour de cassation. Justice & Cassation 9:95–100
Teuben K (2012) Kroniek: cassatie. Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 20:102–106
Texier S-L (2017) Réflexions sur le règlement du litige au fond par la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 193:63
Thijs D (2017) Installatierede Procureur-Generaal Dirk Thijs. https://justitie.belgium.be/nl/nieuws/andere_berichten_56. Accessed 7 June 2018
Touffait A, Tunc A (1974) Pour une motivation plus explicite des décisions de justice notamment de celles de la Cour de cassation. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 72:487–508
Tunc A (1978a) Synthèse. In: Bellet P, Tunc A, Touffait A (eds) La cour judiciaire suprême: une enquête comparative. Economica, Paris, pp 5–83
Tunc A (1978b) Conclusions: la Cour suprême idéale. In: Bellet P, Tunc A, Touffait A (eds) La cour judiciaire suprême: une enquête comparative. Economica, Paris, pp 433–471
Uzelac A, Galič A (2017) Changing faces of post-socialist supreme courts: Croatia and Slovenia compared. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West: adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 207–228
Van Bossuyt H (2011) Toegang tot de rechtspraak en toegankelijke rechtspraak. In: Bossuyt A, Deconick B, Dirix E et al (eds) Liber spei et amicitiae: Ivan Verougstraete. Larcier, Brussel, pp 109–115
Van Der Haegen (2015) M Het Hof van Cassatie op het kruispunt van publieke en private belangen: pleidooi voor een versterking van de cassatierechtspraak. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 52:1235–1309
Van Gerven W (1997) Creatieve rechtspraak. Rechtskundig Weekblad 61:209–223
Van Suilen A (2012) Pleidooi voor prejudiciële procedure in belastingzaken. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Fiscaal Recht 13:2745
Vanwelkenhuyzen A (1978) La motivation des revirements de jurisprudence. In: Perelman C, Foriers P (eds) La motivation des décisions de justice. Bruylant, Brussel, pp 251–286
Veegens D (1965) Nieuw cassatierecht in Nederland. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 2:177–197
Veegens D, Korthals Altes E, Groen H (2005) Cassatie in burgerlijke zaken. Kluwer, Deventer
Veegens D, Korthals Altes E, Groen H (2015) Cassatie in burgerlijke zaken. Kluwer, Deventer
Verkerk R, Van Rhee CH (2017) The Supreme Cassation Court of the Netherlands: efficient engineer for the unity and development of the law. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West: adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 77–96
Verougstraete I (2000) Het Hof van Cassatie en de motiveringsplicht. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Van Ommeslaghe. Bruylant, Brussel, pp 1061–1087
Verougstraete I (2010) Van cassatie naar revisie. In: Dauwe B, De Gryse B, De Gryse E et al (eds) Liber Amicorum Ludovic De Gryse. Larcier, Brussel, 2010, pp 445–462
Verougstraete I (2016) Les revirements de la Cour de cassation. Journal des Tribunaux 135:453–456
Verstraelen S (2015) Rechterlijk overgangsrecht. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Vexliard C (2013) Le règlement du litige après cassation. Justice & Cassation 9:101–110
Vigneau V (2010) Le regime de la non-admission des pourvois devant la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 186:102–111
Welamson L (1979) La motivation des décisions des cours judiciaires suprêmes. Revue internationale de droit comparé 31:509–519
Wiarda G (1978) Le Hoge Raad des Pays-Bas. In: Bellet P, Tunc A, Touffait A (eds) La cour judiciaire suprême: une enquête comparative. Economica, Paris, pp 275–291
Zenati F (1992) La saisine pour avis de la Cour de cassation. Recueil Dalloz 168:247–254
Zenati F (2016) La juridictionnalisation de la Cour de cassation. Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 114:511
Zuckerman A (2013) Zuckerman on civil procedure: principles of practice. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) Introduction to comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Der Haegen, M. (2018). Transformation of the Cassation Model in France, The Netherlands and Belgium: Piercing the Legalistic Veil. In: Uzelac, A., van Rhee, C. (eds) Transformation of Civil Justice. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 70. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97357-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97358-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)