Talk:Law of France

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Top‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

France sources: · · · · · Google · (books · scholar) · ·

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.85.18 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup?

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

Not only messy, it does not contain adequate information, it should be totally rewritten by a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.72.35.180 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"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. Writtenright 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Writtenrightp[reply]

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 here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Elinruby (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Law of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC) specifics=Kabir, Nahid (2010). Young British Muslims. p. 170.[reply]

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 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. Mathglot (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mathglot (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now replaced with File:Judiciary of France.svg, which is the same, but in English. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 (T337199). For details, please see this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]