Judicial principles and studies
Impossibility under Article 247 of the Civil Code
This study summarizes a judicial position that closures ordered for defense reasons fall within impossibility under Article 247, and that an appellate court’s ability to insist on its decision is limited when the cassation concerns evidence assessment rather than legal questions.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The study addresses the application of Article 247 of the Civil Code to full or partial lockdowns imposed by defense orders, and examines the limits of Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding an appellate court’s stance when faced with a cassation concerning factual assessment and evidence weighting.
Summary
The analysis finds that lockdown periods ordered for defense reasons qualify as impossibility under Article 247. It also explains that Article 202 permits an appellate court to follow a cassation ruling of the ordinary panel when the cassation raises legal issues; however, where the cassation concerns the weight and appraisal of evidence and the appellate court’s exercise of powers to question the plaintiff, the appellate court may not insist on its decision that was overturned, and such insistence is misplaced. This content is an educational summary only and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.