Editing Precedent (section)

===Civil law systems===

''Stare decisis'' is not usually a doctrine used in [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems, because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only the legislature may make law. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of ''[[jurisprudence constante]]'', according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same [[Holding (law)|holdings]] using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law. This doctrine is similar to ''stare decisis'' insofar as it dictates that a court's decision must condone a cohesive and predictable result. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound by the precedents of higher courts. In practice, the need for predictability means that lower courts generally defer to the precedent of higher courts. As a result, the precedent of courts of last resort, such as the French [[Court of Cassation (France)|Cassation Court]] and the [[Council of State (France)|Council of State]], is recognized as being ''de facto'' binding on lower courts.

The doctrine of ''jurisprudence constante'' also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of [[common law]] jurisdictions give a sufficient ''ratio decidendi'' as to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent for future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently [[France]]) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going into the ''ratio decidendi'' in any great detail. This is the result of the legislative positivist view that the court is only interpreting the legislature's intent and therefore detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, ''ratio decidendi'' is carried out by legal academics (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that in [[common law]] jurisdictions would be provided by the judges themselves.{{cn|date=May 2022}}

In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, ''ratio decidendi'' tend to be much more developed than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and doctrinal writers. However, some courts (such as [[Germany|German]] courts) have less emphasis on the particular facts of the case than [[common law]] courts, but have more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.

The mixed systems of the [[Nordic countries]] are sometimes considered a branch of the civil law, but they are sometimes counted as separate from the civil law tradition. In [[Sweden]], for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the [[Supreme Court of Sweden|Supreme Court]] (''Högsta domstolen'') and the [[Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden|Supreme Administrative Court]] (''Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen''), have the right to set precedent which has persuasive authority on all future application of the law. Appellate courts, be they judicial (''hovrätter'') or administrative (''kammarrätter''), may also issue decisions that act as guides for the application of the law, but these decisions are persuasive, not controlling, and may therefore be overturned by higher courts.{{cn|date=May 2022}}