Judicial principles and studies
Cassation and Retrial: Oral Hearing Requirement under Mandatory Rules
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق هيئة عامة رقم (4223/2025).
The study addresses the characterization of Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure as mandatory rules due to their link to procedural order and public policy. This summary outlines the practical consequence.
Courts and procedure
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
The study addresses the characterization of Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure as mandatory rules due to their link to procedural order and public policy. This summary outlines the practical consequence.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
The study examines whether Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be treated as mandatory rules in the context of cassation and retrial proceedings, and it notes the issue of requiring oral hearing. The official point indicates that the Court of Cassation consistently considered these provisions mandatory because they are procedural and foundational and relate to public order.
Summary
The core conclusion is that the cited provisions function as mandatory rules that cannot be deviated from or contracted around, given their connection to procedural fundamentals and public order. This content is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
Characterizing these provisions as mandatory carries procedural consequences for how cassation and retrial are handled: parties cannot validly waive or alter them, and their mandatory nature must be observed when organizing hearings and appeal procedures.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The study examines whether Articles (4/182, 201, 202) of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be treated as mandatory rules in the context of cassation and retrial proceedings, and it notes the issue of requiring oral hearing. The official point indicates that the Court of Cassation consistently considered these provisions mandatory because they are procedural and foundational and relate to public order.
Summary?
The core conclusion is that the cited provisions function as mandatory rules that cannot be deviated from or contracted around, given their connection to procedural fundamentals and public order. This content is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance?
Characterizing these provisions as mandatory carries procedural consequences for how cassation and retrial are handled: parties cannot validly waive or alter them, and their mandatory nature must be observed when organizing hearings and appeal procedures.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.