Talk:Court of Cassation (Belgium)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Belgium High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 5.70.112.105 (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

The article on the French Cour de Cassation speaks - rightly in my opinion - of "quashing" the disputed judgment rather than "annulling" it. Might it not be better to use "quash" rather than "annul" in the Belgian case too? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I basically rewrote (and seriously expanded) the entire article over the past month. I mostly used the word "annul"; I don't know whether the choice for either word makes an important difference though. Do you think the "annulling" should be replaced by "quashing" everywhere in the article? --Brentjee (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, sorry if the history tab is a bit of a mess, but I've rewritten and seriously expanded the article over the last month. If any cosmetic corrections are in order, do not hesitate. Same if you spot any mistakes (but I don't think there are any right now). I've also tried to properly reference all parts of the article, and due to the large amount of references I've divided them into three headings (legislation; journal articles and publications; other references i.e. websites). User:TAnthony, you put up a template asking for more references about a month ago. Given that I've added about 50 sources in the meantime, can I remove the template? Kind regards, --Brentjee (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]