For this research we have summarized the main information about the Court of Cassation as presented on the courts official government website. Additionally, a selection translated of articles which help to highlight the key differences in the system from the French perspective. We will give a brief explanation of the court with the description of its core mechanisms, discussing the appeals process and will highlight the list the criterias of admission for the cases which are mainly based on core practice of the Court and main regulations of the French Civil Procedural Code.Introduction to the Cassation System In short, the Cour de cassation is the French Supreme court, responsible for presiding over cases in private law. The Court of Cassation has a normative and unifying role focused on monitoring the correct application of the law to ensure unified interpretation of the rules throughout France. A judgement by the court is referred to as the judge of the law (Juge de la loi), due to its correct interpretation and its proper application. Traditionally the Court of Cassation generally did not have the power to judge disputes itself, but instead if the Court considered that the previous judge (Juges du fond) had not correctly interpreted the law then court could refer the case to another case in another court of the same competence. However, the law of 1979 now allows the Court of Cassation to quash a decision (casser une decision) without changing it, and to rule directly, where the interpretation of the facts by the court of the merits (la juridiction du fond) is sufficient to allow the correct application of the rule of law. s.Another issue addressed by the court is that it’s sometimes possible that two judgements make contradictory decisions based on the same rule of law, so one of the main functions of the court is to provide equal application in law throughout the Republic. Function of the courtThe court is composed of five divisions, each specializing in a different aspect of law. All divisions function in the same fashion, with three judges hearing a case and concluding whether or not the appeal is “inadmissible or if there are no serious grounds” in which case they will refer the judgment back to the lower court. If the case is acte clair they will deem the appeal as “not admitted”, but is it is not then the case will proceed to through the court and will be heard by a bench of minimum five judges allocated one vote each. In ‘sensitive’ cases or those which may overturn previous case law, the proceedings may proceed as a plenary session by the discretion of the presiding judge. This is only mandatory when a situation has been raised to a lower court a second time after being rejected by the Cour de cassation or if the general prosecutor makes a request to do so before the case is even heard. To proceed with an appeal to the court, applicants to the court must launch an appeal within two months of the judgment (unless specified otherwise) or unless the case is criminal in which the appeal has to be made within five days. In both civil and criminal cases, appeals are only allowed in cases deemed ‘last instance’ (again unless there is extraordinary circumstances) where control of the court can only extend to ground of legislative and disciplinary control. The court has a positive obligation to ensure that it provides valid legal reasoning, which is where some key issues of contradiction with the European court and the cour de cassation are highlighted. The chamber that takes the case hears argument relevant to the specific point of law in question. No other matters may be brought up, and no new evidence may be introduced save that which the procureur général feels would be in the interests of law. If the court does not uphold the decision, it is quashed, and the case is remanded back to another court of the same rank as that from which it came. A new trial is then held and if the lower court chooses to oppose the decision of the Cour de Cassation, the case is returned to the higher court. In the past this second appeal was considered by a united session of all the chambers. With the growth of the court, the number of participants became unwieldy, so in 1967 the task of reconsideration was shifted to a plenary assembly made up of the premier president, the chamber presidents, and usually a few senior members from each chamber. If the high court again quashes the decision, it is sent to a third court, again of the same rank as the first court. This last court, however, must conform to the high court’s decision on the specific point of law covered.The criterias for admissionA case may be taken to the Court of Cassation when the trial court (Juge du Fond) has breached a rule of public order, delimiting its scope of Intervention. The presented cases may be accepted by the Court in the following categories, all of which are based on the infringement of legitimacy: (1) The violation of the law (including non-observance of norms and violation of rules of jurisdiction), (2) The excess of power by judges, denaturation, which is a lack of special motives (quantitative and qualitative insufficiency of reasons), (3) The loss of legal basis and Contradiction of judgments. The term “law” must be interpreted in a broad sense including regulations (decrees, ordinances), customary rules, general principles of law,international treaties,and the rules of Community law which are directly applicable in the territory of the Member States. Conversely, the violation of an administrative circular cannot be a reason for an appeal because it lacks some integral characteristics. The breach of Law is defined in following ways: the law was violated due to its false interpretation, by false characterization of the facts, or by false application or refusal of application. The excess of power may be defined as a judicial violation of regulations, which define jurisdictional powers or “the transgression by the judge, who is competent to try the case, a rule of public order by which the law has circumscribed its authority. ” There are certain indispensable conditions which are required for the application of this norm. First, the judgement must contain motives, such as grounds of insufficient or wrong application of the law. Thus it means that the absence of any motive, such as a fatal flaw, cannot be a subject for cassation. The case of violation must be specifically new to the practice of the Court with the condition that it hasn’t been previously debated or mentioned in legal documents. It is additionally required to have a proper justification to produce a legal effect identical to that of the judgment under appeal.When there is no contradiction between judgement then the court will reject the case. Thus, you must clearly prove the contradiction showing it to be in line with ‘French Code of Civil Procedure’ Articles 617 and 618. Both of these articles serve to define the actions of the court in cases where contradiction is claimed. The lack of legal basisPrecise definition of the judgement which has lack of legal basis may be found in the Civil Processual Code. It merely illustrates the necessity of sufficient statements based on the law for the decision made Insufficiency may be defined in following terms; Incomplete exposure of the fact or inaccurate analysis of the law. Therefore, the Court of Cassation examines the facts to verify that all the elements necessary for the application of the norm have been established by the judges of the merits. As a criteria, the court may take an inaction of the trial judge related to utilization of facts which are necessary to characterize a condition for the application of the law, or he/she fails to interpret a clause which the Court found obscure. Ambiguity of the judgement may appear, for example, when it’s motives don’t provide enough basis to determine whether the judgement was according to the rule of law, or according to which legislative basis the decision was made. It is sometimes the same if the reasons for judgment are unintelligible, dubitative or hypothetical. Censorship is then pronounced for lack of legal basis on the basis of article. Doubtful or hypothetical reasons are considered by the Court of Cassation as defects of form or as a lack of legal basis. The doubtful motive is that which expresses a doubt by judge, whereas the hypothetical motive expresses a supposition.Conclusion of ResearchTo sum up, taking into account all the criterias listed above, we may come to conclusion that the case may be rejected if one of the requirements is not fulfilled. The main criterias of evaluation are: the violation of the law, the excess of power by judges, denaturation, loss of legal basis and Contradiction of judgments. So the case must contain both legal and logical links for cassation.