It matters in an advisory sense (that is, other courts may use it to gain understanding), but not in a legally binding sense.

In practice, precedence has about the same legal power in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

That is civil law courts tend to go with the precedent most of the time on the one hand. And on the other hand, a common law judge can always do a bit of nitpicking to argue why the case before her is special and thus different enough from the precedent (or she can pick from multiple different precedents, and then come up with a justification for why the one she picked matches the case before her the most).

> a common law judge can always do a bit of nitpicking

This makes sense. Precedents ruled by mistake/etc. should not set the law.

Well, that's why you have appeals and higher courts can overrule the precedence of the lower courts.

Some, but not all, precedents are absolutely legally binding in the French system, they have the same force as the law (unless a later law contradicts them).

Yes, not sure if this is the case but higher courts in civil law systems tend to have some precedent setting powers. It's just more limited than in common law. I'm not sure if this is the case in this ruling in france, but even if it isn't

In a civil law system judges still are aware of previous decisions in similar cases and consistent application of the law is still a principle which exists. The precedent might not be binding but a judge who is in doubt will still uses existing case law and so will appeal courts. They will just always refer to the law as the source of the decision, not the previous cases