View source for Talk:Law of France

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Law|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=top}}
}}
{{general sources notice|French law}}
{{France sources notice|Droit français}}
{{todo|5}}

== Droit administratif (administrative law) ==
It does not exist in France an Administrative code. So the main source of administrative law is the case-law of Conseil d'Etat. The reason of that is, while Napoléon has ordered to great lawyers to write the civil code (which is in fact was a synthesis of ancient laws), he does not want administrative law. The only administrative law for Napoléon was that the State has all the powers and may not be judged by a Court. The fact that the State may not be judged remains. But the Conseil d'Etat, which was not a Court (only an institution which gave advices to the State), has become more and more powerfull and its "advices" have become compulsory. So French administrative law is mainly case-law elaborated by the Conseil d'Etat principally during the 3rd Republic. Excuse my English, I am French. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:82.230.85.18|82.230.85.18]] ([[User talk:82.230.85.18#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.230.85.18|contribs]]) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)</small>

: I am about to attempt a summary of a set of litigation in English. Si j'ai bien compris ce que vous dîtes, le code de Napoléon a remplacé ce qu'on appel en anglais ''common law''? et sous ce code l'État peut faire plus ou moins ce qu'il veut, sauf que le conseil d'État doit maintenant toujours être suivi?'' <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elinruby|contribs]]) 02:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)</small>

== Cleanup? ==

This page is quite messy. --[[User:217.146.113.66|217.146.113.66]] 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only messy, it does not contain adequate information, it should be totally rewritten by a scientist. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:193.72.35.180|193.72.35.180]] ([[User talk:193.72.35.180#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/193.72.35.180|contribs]]) 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)</small>


Messy and fairly subjective at times.  "For whatever reason, some laws have not been codified"? That is curious but certainly not professional wording.[[User:Scribbs007|Scribbs007]] ([[User talk:Scribbs007|talk]]) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

== "Bibliographic essay" edited==

I have edited the so-called "bibliographic essay" section. I have tried to make it a little less wordy and a little more fluent and accessible to us Anglophones, without sacrificing anything of importance. If others are unhappy with my meagre efforts, they are more than welcome to edit it in turn. [[User:Writtenright|Writtenright]] 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Writtenrightp

==Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?==

A discussion on the origins of the [[Scottish legal system]] is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click '''[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Why_is_Scots_law_based_upon_Roman_law.3F|here]]'''. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] ([[User talk:Mais oui!|talk]]) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

== under constitutional law  ==

I removed "as applied in Philippine law". from the first bullet item, leaving it to read "human rights". I am not an expert in either French law or the history of French relations with the Philippines but what I do know leads me to question how Philippine law would govern the human rights law of France. I believe this was a cut n paste error someone made. I am noting it here however in case I am wrong. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 02:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Law of France]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=780026578 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031022318/http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~sclavier/research/frenchpenalsystem.doc to http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~sclavier/research/frenchpenalsystem.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929015635/http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/FranceLegalHistory.htm to http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/FranceLegalHistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

== Removing text ==

"Also, during the colonial era some Muslim-dominated societies began to blend the sharia legal system with the French legal system as represented in local law.[3][unreliable source?]"

Contentious claim, and without getting into whether the book is reliable in itself, we are not talking about British Muslims (title of the book) or even about the experience with colonial law. It would be French law, not British anyway. I'll copy the specifics of the source over here just in case someone wants to take issue, but it smells like agenda pushing to me.[[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)  specifics=Kabir, Nahid (2010). Young British Muslims. p. 170.

== Removing the damage ==

This article was never a very good one, with various problems already noted above. But whatever its quality was, it went significantly downhill with one [[Special:Diff/599428073|awful edit]] in 2014 which bolloxed up the very definition of the top level split in French law, between public law (''ordre administratif'', administrative law), and private law (''ordre judiciaire'') which comprises civil law and criminal law, by screwing it up and placing criminal law under administrative law, where it absolutely does not belong. Nine years later, it was still there. I've undone the main damage, which leaves the article back in its previous, rather mediocre state, meaning that there is still plenty of opportunity for improvement, but at least it doesn't start right off at the top with a bunch of falsehoods about the main divisions of French law. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
[[File:Organisation juridictionnelle nationale fr.svg|100px|right]]
: After fixing up the text, I've added image [[:File:Organisation juridictionnelle nationale fr.svg]], which is an accurate, top-level schema of the divisions of French law. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 11:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
:: Now replaced with [[:File:Judiciary of France.svg]], which is the same, but in English. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 11:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
[[File:Judiciary of France.svg|thumb|upright=0.65|is this still in English?]]
Here is that English image. Note that this is a multilingual svg image, which at this writing is being properly displayed in English in the article (and here), but it may spontaneously flip one day into French due to a bug in MW software ({{phab|T337199}}). For details, please see [[Talk:Jurisdictional dualism in France#Fragile svg image label language|this discussion]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 22:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)