La méthodologie du cas pratique (2026) - La méthode complète

Main Ideas

A practical legal case (cas pratique) presents a factual situation and asks the student to identify the legal issue and solve it by applying relevant legal rules. The student must reason like a lawyer or judge: move from the facts to the applicable law, then reach a supported conclusion.

The video demonstrates the method using Sarah, who wants to change her surname because the combination of her first name and surname attracts ridicule and causes her distress.

Methodology

1. Summarize the Relevant Facts

Keep the summary brief and include only facts that matter to the legal problem. Avoid repeating background details that do not affect the legal analysis. In Sarah’s example, her interest in fashion and career ambitions are not relevant to whether she can change her surname.

Some instructors also require a legal classification of the facts—describing them using legal categories. Whether to include this depends on the professor’s expectations.

2. Formulate the Legal Question

Identify the legal issue raised by the facts and phrase it in general, abstract, and impersonal terms. Do not simply ask what a named person in the scenario can do.

For Sarah’s situation, the issue can be framed as whether a person whose first and last names together are ridiculous may request a change of surname.

3. Use Legal Syllogism to Solve the Problem

Organize the reasoning into three parts:

• Major premise — the rule of law: State the applicable legal rule and cite its source precisely. Sources may include legislation, the Civil Code, decrees, constitutional provisions, treaties, or case law. Avoid vague references such as “the Civil Code says”; identify the relevant article where possible. The presenter recommends using several separate syllogisms when needed rather than placing every rule into one large block.
• Minor premise — application to the facts: Begin with a phrase such as “In this case…” Compare the facts with the conditions in the rule and explain whether those conditions are met. Do more than assert a conclusion: explain why the facts satisfy the legal requirement.
• Conclusion — the outcome: State what follows from applying the rule to the facts. Use a clear conclusion, such as “therefore” or “consequently.”

Put the major premise, minor premise, and conclusion in separate paragraphs. This makes the reasoning easier to follow and shows its structure clearly.

Example: Sarah’s Request to Change Her Surname

• Relevant facts: Sarah is distressed by the combination of her first name and surname, which leads to persistent mockery.
• Legal question: Can a person seek to change a surname when the combination of their first and last names is ridiculous?
• Rule described in the video: Under Article 61 of the Civil Code, a person may request a surname change if they demonstrate a legitimate interest.
• Application: Sarah would need to show why the name combination is ridiculous and explain its effects, including the mockery and distress it causes. The presenter considers that this may establish a legitimate interest.
• Conclusion: Sarah may be able to request a surname change. The video says the Article 61 process is administrative and that a change is authorized by decree.
• Additional possibility mentioned: Under a law dated 2 March 2022, someone bearing only one parent’s surname may be able to request the other parent’s surname or both surnames through a simplified process.

The broader lesson is that success depends not only on knowing the method but also on finding the relevant legal rules through course materials and additional research.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Speaker: The video’s presenter, from the channel Jurixio – Les vidéos de droit; no personal name is given in the subtitles.
• Legal sources cited by the presenter: Article 61 of the French Civil Code and a law dated 2 March 2022 concerning options for using a parent’s surname.