Talk:Court of Cassation (Belgium)

Annul or Quash
The article on the French Cour de Cassation speaks - rightly in my opinion - of "quashing" the disputed judgment rather than "annulling" it. Might it not be better to use "quash" rather than "annul" in the Belgian case too? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I basically rewrote (and seriously expanded) the entire article over the past month. I mostly used the word "annul"; I don't know whether the choice for either word makes an important difference though. Do you think the "annulling" should be replaced by "quashing" everywhere in the article? --Brentjee (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Major revision (and expansion)
Hello everyone, sorry if the history tab is a bit of a mess, but I've rewritten and seriously expanded the article over the last month. If any cosmetic corrections are in order, do not hesitate. Same if you spot any mistakes (but I don't think there are any right now). I've also tried to properly reference all parts of the article, and due to the large amount of references I've divided them into three headings (legislation; journal articles and publications; other references i.e. websites). User:TAnthony, you put up a template asking for more references about a month ago. Given that I've added about 50 sources in the meantime, can I remove the template? Kind regards, --Brentjee (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)