The general public is a prerequisite for the principle of legality, according to which the final basis of any judicial decision must be the law. In a law with a particularist language, legal techniques©were par excellence subsumption and apart from it analogy. On the other hand, the techniques of a codified system are different, of a more linguistic and technical© nature: the qualification (of facts) and the interpretation© (of norms). VI.5.1. Education. This is the transcription of « teaching staff » trained on the basis of certain assumptions, but ultimately moving away from them and solidifying themselves into a text that seems more typical of a textbook than a sentence. These are jurisprudential paragraphs that are repeated as refrains and provide a motivation for a « bold addressing »: like pãldora, a summary of everything that has been said about a standard, institution or topic, whether it comes to mind or not, is exposed as a reference manual, and then to say that « by virtue of the above, and in application to the present case. and send this concrete character in a disappointing paragraph or tautológic to the concrete case that leaves the reader without knowing exactly what the rule of law was or the determining criterion of the solution. ©© However, it is an accurate and impeccable text, and there is no better way to explain what is said. It is necessarily a technical© language, which makes it inaccessible to a layman; But from the point of view of the legal community, it fulfils the motivational function in a completely satisfactory way. I do not think the judge who wrote it can be accused of not explaining in©more affordable terms what he discovers.       ± ±Â In the case of problems of substantive law, the First Chamber examines exhaustively the criterion to be taken into account when deciding on a particular ground of cassation and therefore delivers a particularly reasoned judgment. As it is a judgment, the proposed regulation is measured directly against concrete facts and assessed as sufficient to find a solution consistent with the legal system.

The difference may seem formal, but it is important because it leaves everyone in their place: the legislator, who dictates general and abstract rules; judges who settle issues knowing that they are establishing interpretative guidelines anchored in the legal system in the form of arguments.