Conclusions check (arts. 742 to 748bis Judicial Code)

How the tool works

You load your conclusions as a PDF (with text, not a scan) or a Word .docx, or you paste the text. The file is read in your browser: nothing is uploaded, stored or kept. You state the language of the proceedings, the filing mode (e-Deposit or DPA-Deposit, or on paper) and whether these are the party's last conclusions.

The tool looks for words and headings, then marks each point "In order", "To check", "Not found" or "Reminder":

• the identity of the parties (domicile or electronic judicial address; legal form and registered office of a legal person) and the role number;
• the signature, when the conclusions are not filed through e-Deposit or DPA-Deposit;
• the facts, claims, means and dispositif, and their order;
• the numbering of the means and the consistent use of "principal" and "subsidiary";
• concrete requests in the dispositif (amounts, costs, procedural indemnity);
• references to other conclusions;
• the inventory, and pieces cited that are not in it;
• the language of the text against the language of the proceedings.

Legal basis

• Art. 742 Judicial Code: conclusions are filed at the registry with an inventory of the pieces communicated.
• Art. 743: they state the name, first name and domicile or electronic judicial address of the parties, and the role number. A legal person is identified as art. 703 requires. Conclusions not filed through the IT system of art. 32ter are signed by the party or its lawyer.
• Art. 744, al. 1: they contain, successively and expressly, the relevant facts, the claims, the means (numbered when there are several, marked principal or subsidiary) and the dispositif sought.
• Art. 744, al. 2: conclusions from another case or instance that are referred to do not count as conclusions for art. 780.
• Art. 748bis: save exceptions, a party's last conclusions are synthesis conclusions; they replace the earlier conclusions and the originating act.
• Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in judicial matters, art. 40: a procedural act in a language other than that of the proceedings is void, and the judge raises it of its own motion.

Points of attention

• Arts. 743 and 744 carry no nullity. The sanction lies in art. 780, al. 1, 3°: the judge answers the means set out as art. 744, al. 1 requires, and need not answer the others (Constitutional Court, judgment 62/2018).
• A missing signature can be regularised (art. 863; Cass., 14 November 2017).
• Art. 748bis does not require the label "synthesis conclusions": it is the practice. What matters is that the conclusions stand alone. A claim not repeated in them is deemed abandoned (Cass., 8 March 2013).
• Conclusions are sent to the other party when they are filed (art. 745). Pieces not communicated at the latest with them are excluded of the court's own motion (art. 740), as are conclusions filed outside the calendar's deadlines, save exceptions (art. 747, § 4).

What the tool does not do

• It does not read scanned PDFs: paste the text instead.
• It does not assess the merits: the relevance of the facts, the strength of the means, the amounts claimed.
• It relies on words and headings: it can miss a well-drafted part under an unusual heading, or accept a defective one.
• It does not compare two versions of your conclusions, and it checks neither the calendar's deadlines nor the sending to the other party.

Verification and responsibility

The rules were checked on 4 October 2026. The tool is a reading aid: the lawyer remains responsible for the conclusions and for checking the applicable rule.