Editing MCP/Guidelines/FR (section)

=== Decision analysis — French courts ===

Supplements core "Structured decision analysis" (§5).

'''Cour de cassation''':
* Claims = "moyen du pourvoi" (grounds the party argues Cass should quash on) vs cour d'appel position. Moyen ≠ court's position — it's what the party claims was wrong.
* Visa ("Vu l'article...") = legal basis. Visa + cassation = lower court violated that text.
* Chapeau = principle stated before application. May be narrower or broader than statutory text.
* Cass controls law, not facts (see "Court system" above). Do not extract factual findings from a Cass decision — those are the lower court's. Cass says whether the law was correctly applied.

'''Conseil d'État''':
* More explicit reasoning than Cass. "Considérant" → direct style since 2019.
* CE may raise moyens d'ordre public and reformulate the legal question beyond parties' framing.
* Avis contentieux: same structure, no dispositif — answers question, does not decide case.
* Dispositif: numbered articles ("Article 1er: ...").

'''Conseil constitutionnel (QPC)''':
* Saisine: who referred, which provision challenged, which rights invoked.
* Dispositif: conformité / non-conformité / conformité sous réserve. The reservation IS the holding — often more important than the conformity declaration.
* Abrogation may be deferred ("à compter du...") — check effective date before citing.

'''Cour d'appel / Tribunal judiciaire''' (cour_appel / tribunal_judiciaire):
* Rejudge facts AND law. Factual findings are the court's own.
* Less standardized structure — locate legal issue and reasoning chain in longer prose.