ANGLAIS JURIDIQUE

                                                                   
                                                                                        Hala Walid .
                                                                   
                                                                                      licence 1       
                                                      
                                                                    Group A .       

"Iin practice does the court presidence influence the juge's opinion to the
extend that makes the defacto binding ?
we simply need to break down our question intro small parts that
needs to be defined ;  starting of with the court presidence  which
refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding
subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal
issues in fact a court presidence's  responsible for the arrangement
of the work of the Court and presides whenever he is sitting in the
Court. In arranging the work of the Court he is assisted by a Registrar.
Furthermore the de facto term indicates that  An action taken without strict
legal authority to do so, but recognized as legally valid nonetheless.
Moreover De facto means a state of affairs that is true in fact, but that is not
officially sanctioned. In contrast, de jure means a state of affairs that is in
accordance with law (i.e. that is officially sanctioned).
We find two types of law ( common and civil ) so we can also
determine that in civil law The court precedent is  a legal principle
that has been established by a superior court should be followed in
other similar cases by that court and other courts meanwhile in
common law judges decide cases along the lines of earlier decisions
made in similar cases ('precedents'). Judges are also required to
interpret legislation if there is a dispute about the meaning or how to
apply an Act in a case. These interpretations then become part of
the common law.
Courts may reason using precedents in various ways, but not all of them
satisfy the rule of law . In fact , courts always have a reason to decide
precedent-governed disputes by following precedent. which is a minimum
requirement of the rule of law.
For instance ; in the USA who follows the common law, the supreme court is
the highest court and its decisions are binding on the other lower courts  ,  to
reiterate the  lower courts are forced to follow to the  supreme court
according to  the  rule of  hierarchy of the courts.
Such as  the doctrine of precedent in the  English legal system. Within the
hierarchy of English courts structure, it is a general idea that in some cases
are bound to follow previous decisions while some cases are not.
On the contrary ; it not the same case in France , which is different from the
civil law thatʼs codified .
Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis
means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in
the application of law so we can establish that  in Civil law and pluralist
systems precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the
courts.