coalescing into an ad hoc formation, the "full fiscal" (plénière fiscale) chamber. The more important cases are for the administrative claims department judgement formation (Section). Only the very important cases, with hard, new and/or important legal issues are concerned. There are about between 20 and 40 cases per year into this specific formation, which includes the president of the ten chambers, the three assistant-presidents of the administrative claims department and the president of the department, which, in addition to the magistrate responsible of the investigation about the case, reaches 15 members. The major cases are resolved by the administrative claims assembly (Assemblée du contentieux). All the presidents of departments are there, under the presidency of the Vice-President of the Council of State. Less than 10 cases per year are concerned. All the cases, even the ones eventually resolved by the Assemblée du contentieux, are first studied by a chamber. Although, as is the general rule in French administrative law, the procedure is written, one of its highlights are the oral conclusion of the rapporteur public (public magistrate), giving his personal vision of the case, totally impartial and free, on a pure legal point of view. Reading the conclusions from past cases is often useful to understand the mindset of the judges and the reason of the solution given to the case. Nonetheless, and unlike in common law jurisdictions operating under stare decisis, those former judgements do not constitute a binding precedent for French judges, who remain free to adapt or overturn them (in a so-called renversement de jurisprudence). Since an order of 2009 (n° 2009–14, 7 January 2009), there is a possibility for the parties to speak after the rapporteur public'''s conclusions. Lawyers use this possibility only for major cases, when it can make a significant difference (e.g. for the Hoffmann-Gleman case – 16 February 2009 – concerning the compensation of the daughter of a deported Jew during the World War II, involving the French state's responsibility). In some cases, there may be some confusion as to whether a case should be heard before an administrative law court or judicial court, in which case the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, or tribunal des conflits, made up of an even number of State councillors and Supreme Judicial Court justices, is convened to decide to whom the matter shall be vested. Until 2015, this Court was chaired by the Minister of Justice, whose