Courts
What is cassation, and does a cassation court sit at the top?
Cassation is a way of examining a judgment, not a rank a court holds. German law proves the point: the Revision is confined to legal error and is heard against first-instance judgments of courts that are not the apex of anything.
In short
Cassation is a mode of review in which a court examines whether the law was correctly applied and does not re-establish the facts. The word comes from casser, to break: the characteristic outcome is that the judgment below is broken rather than replaced. What it is not is a level in a hierarchy, and the English habit of treating "the Court of Cassation" as a translation of "the Supreme Court" loses the distinction entirely.
Why it exists
AnalysisA system that let every dissatisfied party have the facts examined again would need as many second courts as first ones, and would never finish anything. But legal questions have a different property from factual ones: the answer should be the same everywhere, and a court that hears them from across the system can make it so. Cassation is the arrangement that follows from taking that difference seriously.
How it works
German law states the confinement precisely. Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a Revision may be based only on the judgment resting on a violation of the law, and that the law is violated where a legal norm was not applied or was not correctly applied. Facts established below are not reopened.
The scope of examination is narrower still. Section 352 provides that the review court examines only the applications actually made, and — where the Revision rests on procedural defects — only the facts designated when those applications were brought. The court does not go looking.
France supplies the institution most people mean by the word. The Cour de cassation is the highest court of the judicial order, and what makes it distinctive is the mode rather than the position: it reviews whether the law was correctly applied rather than re-deciding the case.
The Netherlands names the same mode in its constitution. Article 118 of the Grondwet provides for the Supreme Court and cassation — so a system can hold cassation at the apex and still be describing a mode of review rather than defining what an apex court is. Belgium likewise operates a Court of Cassation as its highest court in this mode.
Common misconceptions
Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.
Common belief: A Court of Cassation is that country’s Supreme Court.
In practice: The name describes the mode of review, not the rank. France’s Cour de cassation is the highest court of the judicial order; German Revision — the same mode — lies against first-instance judgments of the Oberlandesgerichte, which are not the apex.
Common belief: Cassation is just the last appeal.
In practice: It is confined to legal error. German law provides that a Revision may be based only on the judgment resting on a violation of the law, and the review court examines only the applications made.
Common belief: Cassation courts decide the case.
In practice: The characteristic outcome is that the judgment below is broken rather than replaced, which is why the case may return to a lower court to be decided again.
Common belief: Only some systems have anything like cassation.
In practice: The mode appears under different names and in different positions — the German Revision below the apex, the French Cour de cassation and the Belgian Court of Cassation at it, and cassation named in the Dutch Constitution.
How this varies between jurisdictions
A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.
Same mode, different positions in the hierarchy.
- Confined to legal error and available below the apex — Germany, StPO §§ 333, 337, 352.
- The highest court of the judicial order, reviewing legal correctness rather than re-deciding — France, Cour de cassation.
- Named in the constitution alongside the Supreme Court — the Netherlands, Grondwet Art. 118.
- A Court of Cassation as the highest court operating in this mode — Belgium.
Rights and accountability
AnalysisA review confined to legal error is a real protection and a limited one, and both halves matter to a person relying on it. It will not reopen a finding about what happened, and it will examine whether the rule applied to that finding was the right one — applied the same way it would be for anyone else.
The narrowing in section 352 is the same trade in procedural form. A court that examined only what was raised is a court whose decisions can be predicted and prepared for, and one whose silence on other points is not a ruling on them.
What we could not establish
- Four systems are described from primary or official sources. What a cassation court does with a case after quashing, and how often it does so, were not researched.
- Civil cassation, and cassation in systems not named here, are not described. Nothing on this page transfers to a system it does not name.
Where to go next
Related: supreme courts and final appeal, what a reviewing court can do, and trial and appellate courts.
Related topics
- Is judicial review just another word for appeal?
No. An appeal asks whether a decision was right; judicial review asks whether a body acted within its powers and followed a lawful process. German law makes the difference structural — a court that thinks a statute is unconstitutional may not disapply it, and must stop and refer.
- What does a supreme court actually do — and does the name mean the same thing everywhere?
It does not. “Supreme court” covers a final appellate court, a constitutional court, both at once, and one apex among several. Some apex courts review whether the law was correctly applied rather than deciding the case again.
- If a challenge succeeds, what actually changes?
Less predictably than the word "won" suggests. Outcomes divide by legal effect — set aside, send back, declare, compensate — and in one constitution the same court striking down the same provision produces different consequences depending on which route the case arrived by.
Sources
Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26
The authoritative German text of all four provisions, each read directly at its own page on Gesetze im Internet. Supports § 333: Revision is admissible against the judgments of the Strafkammern and Schwurgerichte and against first-instance judgments of the Oberlandesgerichte — so this mode of review is not confined to the highest court. Supports § 337, headed "Revisionsgründe", in full: "(1) Die Revision kann nur darauf gestützt werden, daß das Urteil auf einer Verletzung des Gesetzes beruhe. (2) Das Gesetz ist verletzt, wenn eine Rechtsnorm nicht oder nicht richtig angewendet worden ist." The Revision may be based ONLY on the judgment resting on a violation of the law, and the law is violated where a legal norm was not applied or not correctly applied — note the word "beruhe", which requires the judgment to rest on the violation rather than merely to be accompanied by one. Supports § 338, headed "Absolute Revisionsgründe": "Ein Urteil ist stets als auf einer Verletzung des Gesetzes beruhend anzusehen" in an enumerated list of cases, including where the deciding court was not properly constituted (no. 1, subject to the detailed conditions the provision sets out); where a judge or lay judge participated who was excluded from judicial office by operation of law (no. 2); where a judge participated after a challenge for fear of bias had been declared well founded or wrongly rejected (no. 3); where the court wrongly assumed its jurisdiction (no. 4); where the main hearing took place in the absence of the prosecution or of a person whose presence the law prescribes (no. 5); where the judgment issued on an oral hearing at which the provisions on the publicity of proceedings were violated (no. 6); and where the judgment contains no grounds or they were not placed on the file within the period arising from § 275(1) (no. 7). Supports § 352: the review court examines only the applications made, and where the Revision is based on procedural defects, only the facts designated when those applications were brought. Cited for the STRUCTURE of a review confined to legal error, and for the statutory distinction between a violation the judgment rests on and a listed violation where that is presumed. It establishes no equivalence with any other system's mode of review, states no time limit, and describes no procedure for bringing a Revision.
L'organisation des cours et tribunaux
Ministère de la justice (France) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-24
The Ministry of Justice's own account of court organisation. Supports: the division into ordre judiciaire and ordre administratif; the naming of the tribunal judiciaire, tribunal de proximité, conseil de prud'hommes, tribunal de commerce, tribunal paritaire des baux ruraux, tribunal de police, tribunal correctionnel, cour criminelle départementale, cour d'assises, cour d'appel and Cour de cassation; the three administrative levels (tribunal administratif, cour administrative d'appel, Conseil d'État); and the role of the Tribunal des conflits. A structural self-description: it does not support claims about caseload, effectiveness, or the competence thresholds allocating cases between courts. Undated on the page, so it supports current structure as at the verification date only.
About the Court — Court of Cassation of Belgium
Hof van Cassatie / Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation of Belgium) · Court record · link verified 2026-07-26
The Court of Cassation's own official site, read directly. Supports the institution's name (Hof van Cassatie / Cour de cassation), that "there is one Court of Cassation for the whole Belgian territory" (giving effect to Constitution Art. 147), that it "is not a third degree jurisdiction" and "does not judge the dispute for a third time", and that it "analyses the legality of the rulings and does not know of the facts of the case". Resolves the translation point: the official English rendering of Art. 147 says "Supreme Court", but the institution is the Court of Cassation, which reviews legality, not facts.
The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2008 (official English translation)
Government of the Netherlands (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) · Legislation · 2008 · link verified 2026-07-26
The official English translation of the Grondwet, fetched as a government.nl PDF and text-extracted. Supports Chapter 6 (administration of justice): Art. 112–113 (adjudication and trial of offences are the judiciary's), Art. 114 ("Capital punishment may not be imposed"), Art. 116 ("The courts which form part of the judiciary shall be specified by Act of Parliament"), Art. 117 (judges and the Procurator General at the Supreme Court appointed for life by Royal Decree — the independence guarantee), Art. 118 (the Supreme Court and cassation), Art. 120 ("The constitutionality of Acts of Parliament and treaties shall not be reviewed by the courts" — no constitutional review of statutes), and Art. 78a (the National Ombudsman). The authoritative text is the Dutch original; this English version is an official reference translation.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the official consolidated Dutch text of the Grondwet at wetten.overheid.nl (BWBR0001840), article by article; the Dutch text is authoritative. Supports Art. 10(1): “Ieder heeft, behoudens bij of krachtens de wet te stellen beperkingen, recht op eerbiediging van zijn persoonlijke levenssfeer”, with 10(2)-(3) on personal-data rules and access. Supports Art. 12(1)-(3): “1 Het binnentreden in een woning zonder toestemming van de bewoner is alleen geoorloofd in de gevallen bij of krachtens de wet bepaald, door hen die daartoe bij of krachtens de wet zijn aangewezen. 2 Voor het binnentreden overeenkomstig het eerste lid zijn voorafgaande legitimatie en mededeling van het doel van het binnentreden vereist, behoudens bij de wet gestelde uitzonderingen. 3 Aan de bewoner wordt zo spoedig mogelijk een schriftelijk verslag van het binnentreden verstrekt. Indien het binnentreden in het belang van de nationale veiligheid of dat van de strafvordering heeft plaatsgevonden, kan volgens bij de wet te stellen regels de verstrekking van het verslag worden uitgesteld.” The VERIFIED NEGATIVE this supports is textual: Art. 12 contains no requirement of judicial authorisation. Supports Art. 13: “1 Ieder heeft recht op eerbiediging van zijn brief- en telecommunicatiegeheim. 2 Beperking van dit recht is mogelijk in de gevallen bij de wet bepaald met machtiging van de rechter of, in het belang van de nationale veiligheid, door of met machtiging van hen die daartoe bij de wet zijn aangewezen.” Supports Art. 15(1)-(2): no one may be deprived of liberty outside cases determined by or pursuant to statute; a person deprived of liberty otherwise than by judicial order may request the court for release, is heard within a statutorily determined period, and the court orders immediate release if it judges the deprivation unlawful. Supports Art. 93: “Bepalingen van verdragen en van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties, die naar haar inhoud een ieder kunnen verbinden, hebben verbindende kracht nadat zij zijn bekendgemaakt.” Supports Art. 94: “Binnen het Koninkrijk geldende wettelijke voorschriften vinden geen toepassing, indien deze toepassing niet verenigbaar is met een ieder verbindende bepalingen van verdragen en van besluiten van volkenrechtelijke organisaties.” Supports Art. 120: “De rechter treedt niet in de beoordeling van de grondwettigheid van wetten en verdragen.” Supports Art. 121, that hearings take place in public and judgments state the grounds on which they rest, except in cases determined by statute. Reading Arts. 93, 94 and 120 together is what supports the finding that a Dutch court may not review a statute against the Constitution but must decline to apply it where it conflicts with a self-executing treaty provision. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Hoge Raad, no statute, nothing about any other country.