FR: missing courts and wrong abbrevs

[georgd]

• juris-fr-desc.json is incomplete: the courts of first instance (the recently abolished tribunal d’instance and tribunal de grande instance, the new tribunal judiciaire), the cour d’assises, and some more are missing.
• The abbreviations are not in line with the guide SNE Ref-Lex (http://reflex.sne.fr/jurisprudence-francaise), e.g. C.A. instead of CA, or entirely missing (Conseil d’Etat, Conseil constitutionnel).

If someone can confirm that the currently available abbreviations are not used in France, I can correct them. The missing courts needs input from someone with deeper knowledge of the French system.

[georgd]

@p-heckler what do you think of this?

[p-heckler]

I have been meaning to work more on this one after my initial contribution, but I struggle to find the time these days.

• Some abbreviations are indeed missing: CE for the Conseil d'État, Cons. const. tends to be the new accepted one for the Conseil constitutionnel (it used to be CC). The use of full stops in abbreviations are not erroneous per se, they simply represent the old vs new way of abbreviating in French (removing them being the new way). You still find both in citations, but you are right that no full stop is probably more future-proof.
• Courts of first instance missing was something I noticed when I reviewed the file, but adding them would be a substantial undertaking (we are talking 173 jurisdictions just for the newly restructured Tribunal judiciaire, 101 for the Cour d'Assises, 42 tribunaux administratifs, plus 210 Conseils des Prud'hommes and 135 tribunaux de commerce). Given that the first instance is rarely cited in scholarly works, I wonder whether or not it is worth it. What is Jurism's position on this?

[georgd]

I have been meaning to work more on this one after my initial contribution, but I struggle to find the time these days.

• Some abbreviations are indeed missing: CE for the Conseil d'État, Cons. const. tends to be the new accepted one for the Conseil constitutionnel (it used to be CC). The use of full stops in abbreviations are not erroneous per se, they simply represent the old vs new way of abbreviating in French (removing them being the new way).

I suspected so, I darkly remember, when I had to do with French juridic sources for the last time, the full stops were all over the place ;)

You still find both in citations, but you are right that no full stop is probably more future-proof.

The question is if the old version is still actively used, or are all new documents using the new abbreviations. If the former was the case, they could be added as a variant (like frTraditionnel) that would be called by styles explicitly requiring this form. If not, they could safely be replaced, I think.

• Courts of first instance missing was something I noticed when I reviewed the file, but adding them would be a substantial undertaking (we are talking 173 jurisdictions just for the newly restructured Tribunal judiciaire, 101 for the Cour d'Assises, 42 tribunaux administratifs, plus 210 Conseils des Prud'hommes and 135 tribunaux de commerce). Given that the first instance is rarely cited in scholarly works, I wonder whether or not it is worth it. What is Jurism's position on this?

Looking at 11700 lines of Chinese court abbreviations, I don’t think, Jurism is generally against it, @fbennett ? ;)

[Edit: German abbreviations list a relatively complete set, resulting in 5715 lines. FR might surpass it but still not reach at Chinese dimensions :)]

Recently, I added the 42 TA but I didn‘t dare touching the others.

[p-heckler]

If the former was the case, they could be added as a variant (like frTraditionnel) that would be called by styles explicitly requiring this form. If not, they could safely be replaced, I think.

From what I can tell, the new version is overwhelmingly used and I am not aware of any style that explicitly requires the old form (most styles don't seem to have explicit rules for this, but authors and typesetters seem to systematically default to the new version). The Conseil d'État does not seem to use full stops either in its cases or on its website. I don't think a variant would be useful for Jurism (this is coming from someone who still uses full stops :)) and in this case, a search-and-replace would arguably be a more efficient solution to accommodate a minority of authors.

Looking at 11700 lines of Chinese court abbreviations, I don’t think, Jurism is generally against it

Fair enough! I could contribute to this in a not-too-distant future when my schedule clears a bit.

[fbennett]

Hello all! About lower, seldom-cited courts, there isn't a clear cut-off, but I lean toward omission. China is indeed massive. It was once even more bloated (the data was scraped from a website that went down to trial-court level in remote villages, and the scale of it was a nice stress test at the time---but no one was asking for it). I pruned trial courts a couple of years ago, and may shave off another layer sometime soon.

…

On Tuesday, October 13, 2020, p-heckler ***@***.***> wrote: If the former was the case, they could be added as a variant (like frTraditionnel) that would be called by styles explicitly requiring this form. If not, they could safely be replaced, I think. From what I can tell, the new version is overwhelmingly used and I am not aware of any style that explicitly requires the old form (most styles don't seem to have explicit rules for this, but authors and typesetters seem to systematically default to the new version). The Conseil d'État does not seem to use full stops either in its cases or on its website <https://www.conseil-etat.fr/tribunaux-cours/organisation>. I don't think a variant would be useful for Jurism (this is coming from someone who still uses full stops :)) and in this case, a search-and-replace would arguably be a more efficient solution to accommodate a minority of authors. Looking at 11700 lines of Chinese court abbreviations, I don’t think, Jurism is generally against it Fair enough! I could contribute to this in a not-too-distant future when my schedule clears a bit. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#25 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAASMSVVP35X7KBSN63NQETSKQHMTANCNFSM4SFZEGCQ> .