Drafting conclusions under articles 743 and 744 of the Judicial Code

The rule in brief

• Particulars (art. 743). The parties' name, first name and domicile or electronic judicial address, 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.
• Structure (art. 744, al. 1). Successively and expressly: the facts, the claims, the means (numbered, principal or subsidiary) and the dispositif sought.
• No reference to other proceedings (art. 744, al. 2). Conclusions from another case or instance do not count.
• Synthesis (art. 748bis). A party's last conclusions replace all earlier ones.
• Inventory (art. 742). Conclusions are filed with an inventory of the pieces communicated.
• Sanction. No nullity. The judge need not answer means not set out as art. 744 requires (art. 780, al. 1, 3°).

The conclusions check reads your text against these rules, in your browser.

Required particulars (art. 743)

Conclusions (conclusions / conclusies) state:

• the name, first name and domicile, or the electronic judicial address, of the parties (al. 1);
• the role number (numéro de rôle / rolnummer) (al. 1);
• for a legal person, the particulars of art. 703: name, legal form and registered office (al. 2). Adding the company number is good practice.

Conclusions not filed through the IT system of art. 32ter, such as e-Deposit, must be signed by the party or its lawyer (al. 3, as amended by the law of 25 May 2018, in force on 9 June 2018). A missing signature can be regularised (art. 863). In a judgment of 14 November 2017, the Court of Cassation held that unsigned paper conclusions may be disregarded unless the party adopts them by the hearing at the latest. Art. 743 requires no date.

Structure (art. 744)

Since 1 November 2015 (law of 19 October 2015), conclusions contain, successively and expressly:

1. the relevant facts;
2. the claims (prétentions / vorderingen);
3. the means (moyens / middelen), numbered when there are several, each marked principal or subsidiary;
4. the dispositif sought, with its principal and subsidiary branches where relevant.

The Code sets no length, pagination or layout. Models published by courts use four headings (facts, claim, numbered means, conclusion), then a signature and a numbered inventory. The dispositif commonly opens with "PAR CES MOTIFS" (French) or "OM DEZE REDENEN" (Dutch).

Al. 2 adds that conclusions filed in another case or at another instance, when referred to, do not count as conclusions for art. 780. On appeal, restate rather than refer.

What happens if the structure is not followed

Arts. 743 and 744 carry no nullity (art. 860, al. 1). The sanction lies in art. 780, al. 1, 3°: the judgment answers the means set out as art. 744, al. 1 requires. The Constitutional Court (judgment 62/2018) held that conclusions that do not follow art. 744 remain valid and part of the debates, and that the judge may, but need not, leave unanswered the means not set out that way.

Synthesis conclusions (art. 748bis)

Except where conclusions may be filed outside the art. 747 time limits, a party's last conclusions are synthesis conclusions. For art. 780, they replace all its earlier conclusions and the originating act.

• The rule is of public order (Cass., 24 January 2013).
• A claim not repeated is deemed abandoned (Cass., 8 March 2013).
• The object of the claim is what the synthesis conclusions say (Cass., 29 March 2012).
• The text does not require the label "synthesis conclusions" (conclusions de synthèse / syntheseconclusies). It is the practice, and it helps the judge.

Synthesis conclusions must stand alone. A sentence such as "for the rest, refers to its earlier conclusions" brings nothing back.

Pieces and inventory

• Pieces are communicated before they are used (art. 736). Any communication through the registry carries an inventory (art. 737).
• Conclusions are filed with an inventory of the pieces communicated (art. 742).
• Pieces not communicated at the latest with the conclusions are excluded of the court's own motion (art. 740).
• A missing inventory has an evidential effect only: the inventory raises a presumption that the listed pieces were communicated.
• Conclusions are sent to the other party at the same time as they are filed (art. 745).

Language and filing

Conclusions and their inventory are procedural acts. They are written in the language of the proceedings (law of 15 June 1935). An act in another language is void, and the judge raises it of its own motion (art. 40). Quotations are acceptable if translated or summarised. Pieces are different: a translation is ordered only at the request of the party they are used against (art. 8). The guide to the language of proceedings covers these rules.

Conclusions are filed at the registry (greffe / griffie) or at a hearing, sent by post or filed through the IT system (art. 742). Sent by post, they count from the day the registry receives them. Through e-Deposit, filing remains possible until midnight on the last day (art. 52). Filed outside the calendar's time limits, they are excluded (art. 747, § 4): see the guide to the article 747 calendar.

What the formal check looks for

You load a PDF with text, a Word .docx or pasted text, and state the language of the proceedings, the filing mode and whether these are the last conclusions. Nothing is uploaded. Each point is marked "In order", "To check", "Not found" or "Reminder":

• the language of the text;
• the parties' domicile or electronic judicial address, the legal form and registered office of a legal person, the role number;
• a signature block, for paper filing only;
• the facts, claims, means and dispositif, and their order;
• numbered means, and "principal" and "subsidiary" used in both the means and the dispositif;
• concrete requests in the dispositif (amounts, costs, procedural indemnity);
• references to other conclusions, and whether last conclusions stand alone;
• the inventory, and pieces cited that are not in it.

It cannot judge the merits: the relevance of the facts, the strength of the means, the amounts. It relies on words and headings, so it can miss a part under an unusual heading or accept a defective one. It does not read scanned PDFs or compare two versions.

Worked examples

A synthesis that is not one. We ran a short set of French conclusions through the check's engine: synthesis conclusions for a plaintiff before the court of first instance of Liège, role number stated, claiming €8,450 from a roofing company for water damage. The means are numbered, the first "à titre principal", the second "à titre subsidiaire" (an expert examination). Before the dispositif, one sentence says the plaintiff refers to his earlier conclusions for the rest. The text cites a report as piece 7; the inventory lists pieces 1 to 6. Filed on paper, the result is:

The other points were "In order", plus the usual reminders. Filed through e-Deposit, the signature becomes a reminder. The fixes: add the expert examination as a subsidiary request in the dispositif, delete the reference and restate what still matters, add piece 7 to the inventory, and sign if filing on paper.

Filing late by post. A calendar gives the plaintiff until Wednesday 30 December 2026. The conclusions are posted on Monday 28 December and reach the registry on Thursday 31 December. They count from receipt (art. 742), so they are late and excluded of the court's own motion (art. 747, § 4). Through e-Deposit, they could have been filed until 23:59 on 30 December, and sent to the other party the same day (art. 745).

Run your own text through the conclusions check, and plan the time limits with the conclusion calendar.

Common mistakes

• Referring back to earlier conclusions or to first-instance conclusions (arts. 744, al. 2, and 748bis).
• A claim in the body, missing from the dispositif. Whether only the dispositif counts is not settled by statute; restate every request there.
• Unnumbered means, or a subsidiary branch missing from the dispositif.
• Pieces cited but not in the inventory.
• Unsigned paper conclusions.

In criminal cases, art. 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies arts. 743 and 744, but not art. 780.

The tool is a reading aid: the lawyer remains responsible for the conclusions and for checking the applicable rule.

Sources

• Judicial Code, arts. 703, 736, 737, 740, 742 to 745, 747, 748bis, 780, 860 and 863: text on Justel. Verified on 4 October 2026.
• Law of 19 October 2015 (arts. 744, 748bis and 780): Chamber document 54-1219/010. Verified on 4 October 2026.
• Law of 25 May 2018 (art. 743, al. 3) and law of 6 July 2017 (art. 742). Verified on 4 October 2026.
• Constitutional Court, judgment 62/2018; Court of Cassation, 29 March 2012, 24 January 2013, 8 March 2013 and 14 November 2017. Verified on 4 October 2026.
• Court of first instance of Leuven, note on pieces and conclusions (2/2024). Verified on 4 October 2026.
• Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in judicial matters, arts. 8 and 40. Verified on 4 October 2026.