What is a civil judgment and how do we understand it?

Have you just received an official document from a court, entitled "judgment"? This word, often charged with a certain solemnity, can cover different legal realities, with very concrete consequences for your situation. Understanding the exact nature of the ruling is the first essential step in knowing how to react, what your rights are and what the next steps are. A judgement is not simply an administrative formality; it is the culmination of a procedure in which a judge applies the law to a particular situation. The aim of this article is to demystify the term "judgment" in civil matters, explore its various forms and help you understand its scope. To find out more about reading and analysing judgments in practice, consult our a practical guide to deciphering a civil judgment.

The judgement: more than just a court decision

In the broadest sense, a judgement refers to any decision taken by a judicial authority in a civil action. It is not just the final decision that puts an end to the dispute. A judgement may also be issued during the course of proceedings to organise what happens next or to take temporary measures. Its essential characteristic is that the judge exercises his jurisdictional function: he examines a situation, applies the relevant rules of law and draws consequences that are binding on the persons concerned.

It is important to distinguish the judgment from simple "measures of judicial administration". The latter are decisions taken by the court to organise its own operation or the smooth running of the proceedings, without deciding the substance of the legal problem. For example, the decision to set the date of a hearing, to join two similar cases or to strike a case off the list for lack of diligence on the part of the parties are administrative measures. They are generally not subject to appeal and do not have the authority of a judgment on the merits of your rights. A judgment, on the other hand, has a direct impact on the rights and obligations of the people it concerns. It is the act by which the judge "says the law" in a given situation.

Why do judges hand down judgements? Their role is to settle disputes submitted to them by litigants (individuals, companies, etc.) by applying the law, or, in certain cases, to review or validate a situation even in the absence of a dispute, when the law so requires.

The different 'species' of judgments: understanding the key distinctions

The term "judgement" covers several categories of decisions, and it is useful to understand these distinctions because they have important practical consequences.

Contentious or non-contentious judgement: is there an adversary?

The most fundamental distinction is between contentious and non-contentious decisions.

• Contentious judgments is the most common case. It arises when there is a dispute or disagreement between at least two people (the "parties"). The judge is called in to settle the dispute. For example, a dispute over a contract that has not been respected, a problem with neighbours, a claim for damages following an accident, or a contentious divorce, all give rise to a contentious judgment. The judge listens to everyone's arguments and makes a decision that is binding on everyone.
• Non-contentious judgmentsA decision is made in the absence of litigation. It may seem surprising, but sometimes the law requires the intervention of a judge to review or validate a situation, even if no-one objects. Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines this as an application subject to review by a judge "by reason of the nature of the case or the status of the applicant". Think, for example, of an application to change a first name, to approve a change in the matrimonial property regime chosen by spouses, or certain adoption procedures. In these cases, there is no adversary as such, but society considers it necessary for a judge to check that everything complies with the law and the interests of the people concerned. The judge then exercises a control, a form of official validation. Even if there is no conflict, the decision is a judgement.

Adversarial", "default" or "deemed adversarial" judgement: were you able to defend yourself?

This classification depends on the way in which the parties have participated (or not) in the proceedings.

• Contradictory judgement is the desired standard. It is reached when all the parties concerned have had the opportunity to present their arguments and defend themselves. Each party has had the opportunity to "contradict" the other, hence the term. This reflects the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings, which is essential to a fair trial. A judgment is also said to be adversarial if the plaintiff (the person who initiated the proceedings) does not appear at the hearing but the defendant nevertheless asks the judge to rule on the merits of the case.
• Default judgment is given when the defendant (the person being sued) has not appeared, i.e. has not appeared or has not been represented. For a judgment to be classified as "by default", two strict conditions must be met: the decision must not be subject to appeal (it is rendered as a "last resort") AND the summons (the initial document informing the defendant of the proceedings) must not have been delivered in person. This situation gives rise to a specific legal remedy: opposition, which allows the case to be retried by the same court, this time in the presence of the defendant.
• Judgment deemed contradictory is an intermediate category. It is given when the defendant has not appeared, BUT one of the conditions for a default judgment has not been met. Either the decision is subject to appeal, or the summons was delivered personally to the defendant. In this case, even though the defendant was absent, the judgment is treated as if it were contradictory. The main consequence is that there is no right of opposition; the defendant can only contest the decision by appealing (if this is possible). The aim of this rule is to encourage people who are regularly informed of a trial to take part in it. For a more in-depth analysis of the differences between judgments by default and judgments deemed to be contradictoryFor more information, see our dedicated article.

Judgment "on the merits", "preliminary ruling" or "provisional": is the decision final or preparatory?

This distinction concerns what the judge actually decides in his judgment.

• Judgment on the merits (sometimes referred to as the "final" judgement) is the one that settles all or part of the main issue submitted to it. It answers the essential question of the dispute. For example, a judgment deciding whether Mr Smith must reimburse Mr Smith, or granting a divorce, is a judgment on the merits. Article 480 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies that as soon as it is handed down, it has "res judicata effect" on the dispute that it resolves. This means that, in principle, this specific point cannot be tried again between the same parties. A judgment on the merits also includes a judgment that rules on a procedural issue (such as a plea of lack of jurisdiction) or an objection (such as the statute of limitations).
• Preliminary ruling (or "ADD") is a preparatory decision. The judge does not yet decide on the substance of the problem, but orders a measure necessary to clarify it or to organise the rest of the proceedings. The most common example is the appointment of a legal expert to give a technical opinion on a defect, assess a complex loss, or audit accounts. The judge may also order the production of documents held by a party or a third party. This judgment does not make any final decision on the merits of the case; the judge remains seized of the case and will issue another judgment, this time on the merits, once he has seen the results of the measure ordered (for example, the expert's report).
• The provisional judgment (or provisional decision) is made in an emergency or to avoid imminent damage, pending a decision on the merits of the case. The typical example is the interim injunction. The interim relief judge takes a rapid measure (e.g. ordering an urgent expert appraisal, granting an advance, putting an end to a manifestly unlawful disturbance) without deciding on the merits of the case. His decision does not have the force of res judicata on the merits and can be modified if circumstances change.
• The mixed judgment combines the two aspects: it makes a final decision on part of the merits of the dispute, and orders a measure (investigation or provisional) for the rest of the case. For example, a judge may decide that a builder is indeed liable for defects (the substantive part of the case), and order an expert report to determine the exact cost of repairs (the preliminary part of the case).

Why are these distinctions important to you?

Understanding which category the judgement you have received falls into is not just an intellectual exercise. It has direct practical consequences:

1. Appeal procedures : The nature of the judgment determines whether and how you can challenge it.
   • A judgment given at first instance may be appealed to the Court of Appeal. This is generally the case for disputes where the financial stakes exceed a certain threshold (currently €5,000) or for certain specific matters.
   • A judgement handed down at "last instance" cannot be appealed. It can only be challenged by an appeal to the Supreme Court, which aims only to verify that the law has been correctly applied, not to retry the facts. This is the case for small claims or certain specific decisions.
   • A default judgment opens the way for opposition, whereas a judgment deemed to be contradictory does not.
   • A preliminary ruling cannot generally be challenged immediately (apart from in exceptional circumstances); you will have to wait for the final ruling on the merits.
2. Enforcement of the decision : Once a judgment on the merits has become final (or if it has been provisionally enforced), it can be enforced if the convicted party does not comply voluntarily. A provisional (summary) judgment is often enforceable immediately. A preliminary ruling ordering an expert opinion must be enforced for the proceedings to go ahead.

These distinctions are fundamental to anticipating and managing the consequences of a judgement. For a a complete overview of the post-judgment stages (notification, enforcement and appeals)Our dedicated article provides essential information.

The exact description given by the judge in his decision (for example, "contradictory judgment given at first instance") is only indicative. If this qualification is incorrect, it has no effect on your rights: it is the actual nature of the judgment that determines the remedies available. However, a mischaracterisation can complicate matters and requires professional advice to ensure that the wrong procedure is followed.

The nature of a judgement determines your rights and possible actions. If you are faced with a court decision and wish to understand its precise scope and your options, particularly with regard to enforcement proceduresOur firm can provide you with personalised advice.

Sources

• Code of Civil Procedure (in particular articles 25, 450, 467-483, 536, 544-545)