Judicial principles and studies
Cassation and Retrial: Oral Hearing Requirement under Mandatory Rules
The study addresses the characterization of Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure as mandatory rules due to their link to procedural order and public policy. This summary outlines the practical consequence.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The study examines whether Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be treated as mandatory rules in the context of cassation and retrial proceedings, and it notes the issue of requiring oral hearing. The official point indicates that the Court of Cassation consistently considered these provisions mandatory because they are procedural and foundational and relate to public order.
Summary
The core conclusion is that the cited provisions function as mandatory rules that cannot be deviated from or contracted around, given their connection to procedural fundamentals and public order. This content is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
Characterizing these provisions as mandatory carries procedural consequences for how cassation and retrial are handled: parties cannot validly waive or alter them, and their mandatory nature must be observed when organizing hearings and appeal procedures.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.