This comes from their equivalent of the Supreme Court
* It doesn't judge the constitutionality of laws. That's the constitutional court.
* It doesn't judge cases related to complaints against the administration. That's for the council of state.
* Its precedents don't bind lower courts, who are free to rule differently.
* In France, judges are explicitly forbidden to write a judgement that seems to hold in a general manner (article 5 of the penal procedure code) - we have a much stricter separation between the legislative and judiciary. They always judge specific cases. This applies to the cour de cassation as well.
It's just not useful to try and compare the US and French legal systems. They're too different.
« Il est défendu aux juges de prononcer par voie de disposition générale et réglementaire sur les causes qui leur sont soumises. »
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...
Could you clarify more? You also said, "In a civil law country, precedent is always subordinate to codified law." That would imply that there is less room for judges to interpret the law more freely. (In India, for example, constitutional courts can even expand or contract the law, by striking down or adding provisions to it through the power of judicial reviews.)