At ULiège, academic custom must be distinguished from a formal requirement

The Faculty of Law’s guidance says that, according to custom, members of the doctoral jury wear gowns at the public defence. This wording establishes a settled practice without turning it into a general formal duty.

A reliable page retains the word coutume or translates it as ‘custom’. ‘Mandatory’, ‘required by regulations’ or ‘throughout ULiège’ should appear only if a current official rule separately supports those terms.

The same faculty framework states that a gown may be borrowed from the university. It proves an institutional lending route and shows that jury use does not equal personal ownership or a new purchase.

Availability, size, collection, any accessories and return need agreement for each defence. ‘May be borrowed’ does not guarantee unlimited stock or establish that every wearer is entitled to the same model.

With a free loan, the gown remains the issuer’s property and returns after the event. A deposit secures that return; an event purchase transfers ownership only where its terms clearly say so.

The cap, sash or other accessories may follow a different ownership route from the gown itself. Before payment or collection, participants should know what they borrow, what they keep and when every loaned component is due back.

Useful planning counts simultaneous participants who actually elect or are instructed to wear gowns, distributed by size. Existing stock, reuse, return timing and repair requirements determine the real shortfall.

The number of degrees or doctoral defences is only academic context. It proves no number of purchases because jury gowns are repeatedly borrowed and student gowns may follow different loan or purchase routes at each event.