Computation of arduous hours under Article 116
Two regional courts had computed the hours of an arduous task differently, one counting preparation time and one excluding it.
Held. Preparation time forming part of the task is counted.
Rulings on divergence
Each ruling states the two positions found and the position that prevails. Every ruling binds every court.
Standing of a user assembly under Article 93
Regional courts differed on whether a user assembly may bring proceedings in its own name against a cooperative supplying it.
Held. A user assembly has standing in its own name for the matters Article 93 places before it.
Position of one court
The Eastern regional court admitted the action.Position of the other
The Western regional court held that only individual users had standing.Time from which the period to challenge an administrative act runs
A divergence on whether the period runs from the act or from its notification to the person affected.
Held. The period runs from notification to the person affected.
Position of one court
Three regional courts ran the period from notification.Position of the other
One ran it from the date of the act.Whether a commune may be an applicant under Article 19 against its own region
The Court held in 2025 that a commune could not act against the region containing it.
Held. The Court departed from this ruling in plenary in June 2026, by reasoned and published decision, Article 19(2) naming communes without qualification.
Position of one court
Ruling of 2025: no standing.Position of the other
Position since June 2026: standing admitted.No ruling matches those conditions.
Form of a ruling
Each entry states the question, the two positions the regional courts took, and what the Court held. The full text carries the reasons, and it is published in open and machine-readable form with the register of the courts the Judicial Council publishes under Article 208(1).