A legal case is never simply: “apply the rule = solution.” It is often more complex: several countries, different branches of law, conflicting interests, or even a system that breaks down. That is why, at Peeters Law, we work with a method we have called the Penteract: we look at every case through five angles, plus one additional angle.

This method may seem complex at first sight to those unfamiliar with it, but in our practice it is an effective way to analyse issues clearly, systematically, and fairly, without overlooking anything or anyone. It is our compass.

Five angles + one additional angle to examine a case, meaning:

1. Territorial dimension (jurisdiction & conflict of laws). In plain terms: Where does it take place? Which court has jurisdiction, which law applies, and can a foreign judgment be recognised. Legal denomination: territorial dimension — international jurisdiction, conflict of laws (applicable law), recognition and enforcement.


2. Material dimension (fields of law). In plain terms: What is it about? Contracts, property, liability, family, inheritance, company law… or a combination. Legal denomination: material dimension — horizontal structuring by field (contracts, liability, lease, succession, company law, …) and vertical layering (national, EU, international, soft law).


3. Linguistic & legal-cultural dimension (language & context). In plain terms: Which words, in which context? Meaning arises through language, embedded in tradition and practice. A clause may carry a different weight depending on language or culture. Legal denomination: linguistic and legal-cultural dimension — semantics, translation, pragmatics, comparative law, contextual interpretation.


4. Normative dimension (foundation of principles and sources). In plain terms: What do specialised jurists and courts say? Their insights, decisions, and principles set direction and limits. Legal denomination: normative foundation — fundamental rights, general principles, jurisprudence (CJEU, ECtHR, Constitutional Court, higher courts), doctrine and soft law.


5. Strategic dimension (strategy, approach & perspective). In plain terms: Which course do we take? Litigate or negotiate, accelerate or postpone, act discreetly or visibly. Always with a broad view: how does this case fit into the wider framework? Legal denomination: strategic dimension — strategic choices (litigation, mediation, advice), approaches (anticipatory, curative, mediating), wide-angle perspective (institutional and societal).


6. Heyvaertian dimension (the fracture line). In plain terms: Where does it break down? Sometimes the law itself falls short. Then correction must be sought at a higher level: Constitutional Court, European courts, or human rights bodies. Legal denomination: Heyvaertian singularity — structural deficiency in law, visible in preliminary references, constitutional review, or reliance on higher norms. Inspired by the dissection method of Professor Alfons Heyvaert, this dimension is a distinctive feature of our methodology.



Why is this method so important? Clarity: you know exactly where you stand. Safety: you avoid costly mistakes and penalties. Trust: you feel that everything has been considered, not only the “letter of the law.” Honesty: we also acknowledge the limits of law.

The Penteract is therefore a practical compass that helps us examine every case from all angles — so that nothing and no one is left out of sight.

Legal reasoning requires far more than the mechanical application of rules.
It demands an architecture, internal relations, a supporting framework.
It presupposes logical coherence, an intelligible form.
It calls for an attentive gaze, an open perspective.
And it is rooted in meaning and context.

Just as a mathematical theorem is only understood through its internal relations,
and a sentence only fully reveals itself through its structure — and its silences —,
so a legal case cannot be reduced to a mere sum of rules:
it requires a readable structure, deliberate reasoning, interpreted context, and a comprehensive view.

It seems simple: know the rule, apply it.
But legal thinking requires more. One must be able to:

• order the subject matter (as in higher geometry),
• build valid arguments (as in logic),
• choose the right angle (as in optics),
• read the text — and what it leaves unsaid (as in linguistics).

Just as a mathematical proof holds only through internal coherence,
a legal argument cannot rest on mere norm-stacking:
it requires structure, coherence, interpretation, and perspective.
To think legally is to construct an architecture — and to recognize the moment it begins to crack.

The penteract is a methodological framework for conceiving law in its layeredness and complexity.
It distinguishes six analytical dimensions which together map the legal landscape (not sequentially, but as a coordinate system):

1. Language & Legal Culture — meaning arises in language, shaped by tradition and practice.
2. Context & Factual Framework — facts are narrated observations; they also expose power relations.
3. Applicable Legal Sphere — territory and jurisdiction (who decides? which law governs?).
4. Substantive Fields of Law — structuring by domain (contract, property, liability, family, …).
5. Normative Foundations — principles, fundamental rights, hierarchy of sources, doctrine and soft law.
6. The Heyvaertian Breachline — the critical point where the system protects itself at the expense of justice, and the jurist must interrupt the reasoning.

The penteract is not a recipe and not a checklist.
It is a commitment to clarity of thought, a method of precision — an internal tool to order multiplicity without flattening it.

Human perception is bounded; legal configurations are not.
Just as a wide-angle lens reveals hidden relations and accepts distortion in order to preserve the whole, the penteract expands the view:

• from rule to counterforce,
• from clause to legal culture,
• from outcome to interpretive frame.
  Without perspective, no accuracy; without shifting the gaze, no meaning.

Law is not a mosaic of isolated rules but a fabric of meanings, competences, and hierarchies, spanning national, European, and international layers.
In such a landscape, linear syllogism collapses; what is needed is a mental architecture that reveals structure and marks limits.

In a layered polity, national and supranational sources intertwine.
Legal certainty must never harden into rigidity: the more complex the context, the greater the need for open norms, structured interpretation, and proportionality.
The penteract gives this vision practical form: five dimensions + one, with constant attention to semantics, context, and proportionality.

Legal reasoning stands in dialogue with:

• Linguistics (semantics, pragmatics, grammar),
• Political and economic context (the creation and operation of norms),
• Comparative law (challenging what seems self-evident),
• Normative theory (keeping alive the question of justice).
  Our arguments are therefore substantively sound, contextually lucid, and methodologically grounded.

Because structure, validity, perspective, and meaning are the cornerstones of legal analysis.
Questions that then sharpen include:

• Is “reasonable” binding or merely indicative in this clause?
• What separates a threat from a promise?
• Why does one jurisdiction read a text differently from another?

A European collective challenges a “reasonably necessary” clause in English-language terms governed by English law.
The penteract guides the analysis:

• Geometric: layer by layer (jurisdiction, applicable law, market dynamics, principles),
• Logical: consistent chains of reasoning from the facts,
• Optical: perspectives of user, judge, and regulator,
• Linguistic: the meaning of “reasonably” in contractual English, Belgian law, EU consumer law, and the idiom of digital platforms.
  The wide-angle approach reveals hidden forces and activates the proper legal framework.

The penteract makes law visible, coherent, and responsible, precisely where context is most resistant — and knows how to step back when law reaches its limit.
Where further reasoning would distort reality, the model marks the boundary and opens the question.

Strategy asks: how do we position this case in time and within the field of forces?
Choices are never purely technical; they occur in an institutional and social context.
Examples:

• litigate or abstain,
• negotiate or defer,
• discretion or visibility,
• accelerate or slow down.

A concrete mode within the strategic dimension:

• Anticipatory (advice, structuring, risk analysis),
• Mediatory (negotiation, settlement),
• Curative (defense, procedure, damage limitation).
  Strategy is the trajectory; the angle is the orientation.

No case is isolated from language, culture, power relations, or normative structures.
A broad, deliberate gaze prevents a detail from being torn out of context.

We commit to careful legal engagement — without guaranteeing results.
Every mandate is clearly defined and may end if circumstances change, ethical concerns arise, or trust is lost, with proper handover of the file.

1. Which court is competent? (international jurisdiction)
2. Which law applies? (conflict of laws)
3. Will a foreign judgment be recognised/enforced? (recognition & exequatur)

Private international law (PIL) coordinates forum, applicable law, and cross-border effects.

• National conflict rules (e.g. Belgian Code of PIL),
• EU regulations (Brussels I bis, Rome I, Rome II, Succession Regulation 650/2012, Matrimonial Property Regulation 2016/1103),
• International treaties (e.g. Lugano Convention, Hague Conference instruments),
• Practical cooperation with foreign counsel.

Without jurisdiction or proper conflicts analysis, even the most solid argument has no effect.
Rules of competence concern not only procedure but also access to justice, language, and position within interwoven legal orders.

Jurisdictional rules are not mere technicalities but nodes where legitimacy, access, and equality intersect.
This is where breachlines can appear.

It identifies the substantive law applicable and ensures precision in specialised structures.
We distinguish:

• Horizontally by domain (contracts, liability, succession, …),
• Vertically by level of norm (national, EU, international, soft law).

What looks like “a tenancy” often requires: BE/ES coordination, EU instruments, translation of clauses, and review against fundamental rights.

Focus: cross-border, multilingual, layered cases.
We intervene where we have demonstrable expertise, under a limited mandate, respecting ethical and insurable boundaries.

In-house (full responsibility):
contract law · liability law · labour law/self-employed status · PIL · consumer protection & market practices · tenancy & real estate (BE/ES) · succession & estate planning (EU) · company & association law (BE) · legal translation & multilingual contracts · language & jurisdiction clauses · property division, usufruct, superficies (BE/ES) · structuring family wealth across legal systems.

With partners (specialists):
GDPR · tax law · public procurement/subsidies · social criminal law/cybercrime · competition/distribution · spatial planning (BE/ES) · posting/A1 · disciplinary law for regulated professions.

Referral:
criminal law (violence/sexual offences/drugs) · asylum & migration · medical liability outside insurance · notarial deeds & successions · enforcement/foreclosure · family law without cross-border element · cases without legal basis or beyond capacity.

Last updated: 25 September 2025. Overview indicative; each file subject to conflict check and mandate.

Language is a full legal factor: it determines meaning, validity, interpretation.
Our method:

• compare terms with authentic source versions,
• ensure legally and contextually correct translations,
• safeguard semantic and comparative consistency,
• where necessary, consult legally trained native speakers, while retaining final responsibility.
  This corresponds to the lawyer’s obligation of means: careful, legally reasoned analysis in context.

The Fifth Dimension

We anchor every position within:

• Control framework: fundamental rights, general principles, jurisprudence (CJEU, ECtHR, highest national courts),
• Interpretive framework: soft law, doctrine, multilayered interpretation, comparative law,
• Strategic framework: positioning vis-à-vis other systems and alternative routes.
  Goal: to render open norms (e.g. reasonableness, privacy) legally testable within a plural legal order.

Every model is a projection; every projection has its limit.
The Heyvaertian breachline marks the point where law, even when properly applied, exposes a void: where the normative structure produces exclusion it cannot correct, where the system protects itself at the expense of justice.
At this point, the jurist interrupts the reasoning — by preliminary reference, constitutional review, or appeal to higher norms — not out of weakness but methodological integrity.
This breach bears the name of Professor Alfons Heyvaert (1936–2024), who dissected law to its bone-structure and exposed what institutions conceal: law is no given nature, but an ordering construction — with choices and consequences. His dissective stance underpins this model: precision as method, doubt as discipline.

The content of this page describes the internal methodological approach of Peeters Law. It constitutes neither an offer within the meaning of Art. 5.57 Belgian Civil Code, nor personalised legal advice.
No (pre)contractual obligation arises from this publication; the theory of legitimate expectations (Art. 5.22) does not apply to expressly non-binding public communication.
A valid agreement with Peeters Law arises only through a clear, unequivocal written confirmation (physical or digital). A unilateral email, conduct, or preliminary invoice does not amount to acceptance without formal mandate.
Peeters Law disclaims any (pre)contractual liability based on this text, except in cases of proven fraud or gross negligence.