Search results

The case-law of the Parliament of Flanders de Georges de Ghewiet was based first on the judgments collected and published in 1716 by Jacques Pollet, a judge in Parliament. The personal work of Georges de Ghewiet, a professional lawyer, was to add new decisions, not only from the Parliament of Flanders but also from the other sovereign courts of the Kingdom and the Netherlands, including comments referring to European legal literature. Like other collections of judgements dedicated to the Flemish Parliament, that of Ghewiet was never printed, despite the author's intention to the contrary. The authors of this article sought to draw up a critical and modern edition of the book by comparing the case-law of the Flemish Parliament with the other collections of judgments of the French parliaments, the author's aims, the structure of the work and the legal references cited and put into practice. ; George de Ghewiet's reports on cases decided by the Sovereign Court (Parlement) of Flanders in the Kingdom of France was primarily based on the reports written by Jacques Pollet, a judge in the same court, which were published in 1716. In his own work, de Ghewiet, an advocate, added new decisions, both of the Parlement of Flanders and of other courts in France and in the Low Countries, and included commentaries referring extensively to European legal literature. Like many other reports of the French Parlement of Flanders (all, however, written by judges), de Ghewiet's reports were never printed, although the author had intended to have the work published. A modern critical edition has been prepared by the authors of the present article. In this contribution, they discuss de Ghewiet's Jurisprudence du Parlement de Flandre in comparison with other reports of the French Parlement, the author's purpose and the structure of the work, and also his use of a wide range of legal authorities. ; The case-law of the Parliament of Flanders de Georges de Ghewiet was based first on the judgments collected and published in 1716 by Jacques ...

International audience ; The absence of reasons given for decisions, which is one of the main characteristics of Ancien Regime justice, is generally inferred from the interdiction made by the royal decrees since the 14th century to disclose the secrets of deliberations. But can one really establish a causal link between them ? In fact, no royal decree or any other normative prescription explicitly forbade the judges of Parliament to give the reasons for their judgments. The author of the Style de la chambre des enquêtes only advised the judges against the practice of disclosing the reasons for their decisions. The Style thus adopted the warnings repeated by the Decretalists since the early years of the 13th century. Therefore, not revealing the rationes decidendi appears to be a common use rather than a firm principle of ancient French law. That use had been imposed by Parliament : first because it was a guarantee for the independence of its members, afterwards - and mainly - because it ensured the courts great liberty, especially because it allowed judges to find a solution outside the formal legal sources. It is because of these reasons - despite the fact that the absence of ratio decidendi constituted a major obstacle to the assertion of a "jurisprudence of the sovereign courts" - that the use persisted until the Revolution. ; La non-motivation des décisions, une des principales caractéristiques de la justice d'Ancien Régime, est généralement déduite de l'interdiction faite par les ordonnances royales, depuis le XIVe siècle, de révéler le secret des délibérations. Mais peut-on réellement établir un lien de cause à effet ? En réalité, aucune ordonnance royale ou autre texte à caractère normatif ne défend explicitement aux conseillers du Parlement de motiver leurs jugements. Tout au plus l'auteur du Style de la chambre des enquêtes déconseille-t-il aux magistrats de livrer les raisons qui ont pu déterminer leur décision. Ce Style ne fait d'ailleurs que reprendre à son compte les mises en garde répétées par les décrétalistes depuis le début du XIIIe siècle. La non-motivation apparaît donc davantage comme un usage que comme un principe de l'ancien droit. Cet usage, c'est le Parlement qui l'a imposé : d'abord parce qu'il garantissait l'indépendance de ses membres, ensuite et surtout parce qu'il assurait une grande liberté d'appréciation permettant aux cours de trouver une solution en dehors des sources formelles du droit. C'est pour ces raisons, et en dépit de l'obstacle que constituait la non-motivation pour l'affirmation d'une jurisprudence des cours souveraines, que cet usage se maintiendra jusqu'à la Révolution.

International audience ; The absence of reasons given for decisions, which is one of the main characteristics of Ancien Regime justice, is generally inferred from the interdiction made by the royal decrees since the 14th century to disclose the secrets of deliberations. But can one really establish a causal link between them ? In fact, no royal decree or any other normative prescription explicitly forbade the judges of Parliament to give the reasons for their judgments. The author of the Style de la chambre des enquêtes only advised the judges against the practice of disclosing the reasons for their decisions. The Style thus adopted the warnings repeated by the Decretalists since the early years of the 13th century. Therefore, not revealing the rationes decidendi appears to be a common use rather than a firm principle of ancient French law. That use had been imposed by Parliament : first because it was a guarantee for the independence of its members, afterwards - and mainly - because it ensured the courts great liberty, especially because it allowed judges to find a solution outside the formal legal sources. It is because of these reasons - despite the fact that the absence of ratio decidendi constituted a major obstacle to the assertion of a "jurisprudence of the sovereign courts" - that the use persisted until the Revolution. ; La non-motivation des décisions, une des principales caractéristiques de la justice d'Ancien Régime, est généralement déduite de l'interdiction faite par les ordonnances royales, depuis le XIVe siècle, de révéler le secret des délibérations. Mais peut-on réellement établir un lien de cause à effet ? En réalité, aucune ordonnance royale ou autre texte à caractère normatif ne défend explicitement aux conseillers du Parlement de motiver leurs jugements. Tout au plus l'auteur du Style de la chambre des enquêtes déconseille-t-il aux magistrats de livrer les raisons qui ont pu déterminer leur décision. Ce Style ne fait d'ailleurs que reprendre à son compte les mises en garde répétées par les ...