Loading...
Title: Courts applying the law / Tribunaux appliquant la loi

Courts applying the law / Tribunaux appliquant la loi

Perspectives from Europe and Asia / Perspectives d’Europe et d’Asie

by Remus Titiriga (Volume editor)
©2025 Edited Collection VIII, 214 Pages
Law, Economics & Management
Series: Cultures juridiques et politiques, Volume 21

Summary

This volume's contributions highlight the legal practice by Courts through three insightful perspectives.
The first one addresses interpretative methods in civil and criminal law, beginning with Germany's Interessenjurisprudenz and its application in German courts. It then reviews the French judicial approach to interpreting civil and criminal texts and explores how the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan handles normative interpretation. The second perspective discusses constitutional control mechanisms, analyzing how the French Constitutional Council uses transitional interpretative reservations, the UK's evolution linked to the Human Rights Act, and the rise of constitutional control in Kazakhstan's legal system. Finally, the third one investigates how domestic courts interact with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) and examines the handling of double taxation treaties by courts in Kazakhstan and Russia.
Les contributions de ce volume mettent en lumière la pratique juridique des tribunaux à travers trois perspectives.
La première aborde les méthodes d'interprétation en droit civil et pénal, en commençant par l'Interessenjurisprudenz allemande et son application dans les tribunaux allemands. Il passe ensuite en revue l’approche judiciaire française de l’interprétation des textes civils et pénaux et explore la manière dont la Cour suprême du Kazakhstan gère l’interprétation normative.
La deuxième perspective aborde les mécanismes de contrôle constitutionnel, analysant la manière dont le Conseil constitutionnel français utilise les réserves interprétatives transitionnelles, l'évolution du Royaume-Uni liée a l' Human Rights Act et la montée du contrôle constitutionnel dans le système juridique du Kazakhstan.
Enfin, la troisième étudie la manière dont les tribunaux nationaux interagissent avec la Convention relative au contrat de transport international de marchandises par route (CMR) et examine le traitement des traités de double imposition par les tribunaux du Kazakhstan et de Russie.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Half Title
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • Contents
  • Foreword
  • Introduction: Contextualizing the Contributions in the Volume
  • Methods and mechanisms of interpretation by the courts in civil and penal matters
  • Germany’s landscape of legal interpretation
  • Germany’s historical developments of concepts and methods for legal interpretation
  • A second dichotomy: Interpretation versus lawmaking (rechtfortbuildung)
  • France’s landscape of law interpretation
  • The School of Exegesis
  • New approaches to overcoming exegesis: The free scientific research of François Geny
  • The teleological or objective method
  • A post-Soviet specificity: The instrument of regulatory decisions of interpretation by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan
  • Transitions in the constitutional control by the courts
  • The expansion of protection of fundamental rights in French constitutional law
  • The expansion of protection of the fundamental rights in UK constitutional law by the Human Rights Act of 1998
  • Transitions and expansion of constitutional control in Kazakhstan
  • Courts crossing borders between legal orders: National courts applying conventional international law
  • Part I Methods and Mechanisms of Interpretation by the Courts in Civil and Penal Matters
  • Profile of the Interessenjurisprudenz as a Normative Interpretation Proposed to the German Courts
  • The Interessenjurisprudenz in the German Methodological Debate
  • Begriffsjurisprudenz
  • The school of free law
  • Interessenjurisprudenz in the German methodological debate
  • The doctrine of Interessenjurisprudenz about the application of the law
  • General aspects
  • Law elaboration: The genetic doctrine of interests
  • Typologies of interests
  • Conflict theory: The weight of interests by the legislator
  • The judicial activity: The “productive doctrine of interests”
  • The theory of interpretation of Interessenjurisprudenz
  • The interpretation proper: A historical research of interests
  • The domain of further development of law by the judge
  • Conclusion: The doctrine of interests winning the methodological contest and the practitioners
  • Illustrating how Interessenjurisprudenz Applies in Real German Cases
  • The case of third-party donation concurring with inheritance law
  • The case and the Reichsgericht solution
  • The case of 1917
  • The conceptual solution of the Reichsgericht
  • The solution of Heck using Interessenjurisprudenz
  • The case at hand
  • The pattern of interests and their legal evaluation in contractual obligations in general
  • Donations inter vivos and the relevant interests
  • The interests in the donation mortis causa (promise of donation) in general
  • Conclusions about the actual legal regime in the BGB for the deferred donations
  • The last will with legacy, the relevant interests and their evaluations
  • Examining the contract with mortis causa clause in favor of a third party, the relevant interests and their evaluations
  • Analogy of interests between the legacy will and our contract in favor of a third party
  • A famous reevaluation judgment analyzed and reconstructed according to Interessenjurisprudenz by Heck
  • The historical interpretation and the rejection of the constancy meaning of the RG
  • Rejecting the dispositive interpretation of monetary laws
  • The temporal adjustment and the need for revaluation
  • The automatic cancellation of the law is excluded
  • Cancellation by the judge’s decision
  • A first restriction is imposed by the need for continuity (legal security)
  • The consideration of the autonomy of the legal community (the legislator)
  • The only solution acknowledged by Heck is a legal intervention
  • The hidden use of Interessenjurisprudenz in a German patent procedure
  • The Appellate Division’s decision
  • The Grand Senate decision
  • Conclusion
  • Remarques à propos de l’interprétation des textes de droit civil et pénal par le juge français
  • Introduction: aspects terminologiques
  • Les modes d’interprétation
  • Les modes d’interprétation en Droit civil
  • Des interprétations littérales et de leur portée
  • Des méthodes exégétiques et extensives
  • Des méthodes exégétiques
  • Les methodes extensives: la méthode dite créatrice
  • Des procédés intermédiaires ou mixtes
  • Interpretation contextuelle
  • Les raisonnements par analogie
  • L’interprétation extensive
  • La méthode d’interprétation dite de l’effet utile
  • Les modes d’interprétation en Droit pénal
  • Les échanges d’interprétations entre le législateur et son interprète judiciaire
  • Les échanges d’interprétations en Droit civil
  • Les échanges d’interprétations en Droit pénal
  • Le législateur a accordé une confiance grandissante au juge judiciaire
  • Va-et-vient entre le législateur et les juges
  • Le juge pénal interprète la loi pénale, sous la surveillance du législateur
  • L’évolution des définitions proposées par la loi et des interprétations retenues par la jurisprudence
  • Quel avenir pour les pratiques interpretative a la lumiere des technologies du numériques?
  • Normative Resolutions of Interpretation by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan
  • Introduction: Interpretation in general
  • Defining the normative resolutions of interpretation by the Supreme Court
  • The importance and the role of the normative resolutions
  • The specificity of normative interpretative resolutions of the Supreme Court
  • Normative resolutions of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan in matters of civil law and civil procedure
  • Normative resolutions of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan in the matters of criminal law
  • Conclusion
  • Part II Transitions in the Constitutional Control by the Courts
  • Nouveau regard sur les réserves (d’interprétation) transitoires du Conseil constitutionnel
  • Introduction
  • Une technique consubstantielle au report dans le temps des effets de l’abrogation
  • Une technique matériellement législative
  • De la rule of law au Human Rights Act: Évolution des droits et libertés au Royaume-Uni
  • Introduction
  • Le cadre juridique de la protection des droits et libertés
  • La rule of law: source jurisprudentielle des droits et libertés
  • Une approche formelle du principe: une norme supérieure s’imposant au juge
  • Une approche matérielle du principe: le contenu de la norme établi par le juge
  • Les droits et libertés: traduction textuelle de l’idéal de la rule of law
  • Les limites imposées aux droits et aux libertés individuels
  • Les limites inhérentes à la nature des droits et libertés
  • Le modèle blackstonien de protection des droits et libertés
  • La remise en question du modèle proposé par Blackstone
  • Les limites liées à l’exercice du pouvoir par la puissance publique
  • La souveraineté parlementaire et la contradiction initiale du modèle dicéen
  • Le Human Rights Act: Une subtile limite à la souveraineté parlementaire
  • Conclusion
  • Emergence of Constitutional controle in Kazakhstan
  • The First Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan (1992–1995)
  • The Second Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan: The Constitutional Council (1996–2022)
  • The third Constitutional Court of Kazakhstan (after 2023)
  • Part III On the Border between Legal Orders: National Judges Applying International Law
  • Les juges nationaux face à la Convention relative au Contrat de transport international de Marchandises par Route (CMR)
  • La CMR : Une base juridique qui appelle à l’interprétation des juges nationaux
  • Genèse et structure de la CMR
  • Champ d’application
  • Champ d’application matériel
  • Champ d’application géographique et réserves
  • Substance et interstices dans les dispositions de la CMR
  • Concrétisations jurisprudentielles
  • Méthode du droit continental et méthode de common law
  • Le juge de la Convention CMR face à l’inflation normative des autres textes
  • Interprétation du juge et truchement du droit interne
  • Influence du droit européen
  • Remarques conclusives
  • Double Taxation Treaties before the Courts of Kazakhstan and Russia
  • Introduction
  • Role of DTTs as Treaties in the Legal Systems of Kazakhstan and Russia
  • Kazakhstan
  • Russia
  • Application and Interpretation of DTTs by National Courts of Kazakhstan and Russia
  • Kazakhstan
  • Case #1: Exalo Drilling JSC
  • Case #2: Potential Oil
  • Russia
  • Conclusion
  • Notes on Contributors

Contents

  1. Foreword

  2. Introduction: Contextualizing the Contributions in the Volume

    Remus Titiriga

  3. Part I Methods and Mechanisms of Interpretation by the Courts in Civil and Penal Matters

  4. Profile of the Interessenjurisprudenz as a Normative Interpretation Proposed to the German Courts

    Remus Titiriga

  5. Illustrating how Interessenjurisprudenz Applies in Real German Cases

    Remus Titiriga

  6. Remarques à propos de l’interprétation des textes de droit civil et pénal par le juge français

    Didier Guével, Luc-Michel Nivôse

  7. Normative Resolutions of Interpretation by the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan

    Zhuldyz Sairambayeva

  8. Part II Transitions in the Constitutional Control by the Courts

  9. Nouveau regard sur les réserves (d’interprétation) transitoires du Conseil constitutionnel

    Maxime Charité

  10. De la rule of law au Human Rights Act: Évolution des droits et libertés au Royaume-Uni

    Louis-Philippe Gratton

  11. Emergence of Constitutional controle in Kazakhstan

    Yesbol Omirzhanov

  12. Part III On the Border between Legal Orders: National Judges Applying International Law

  13. Les juges nationaux face à la Convention relative au Contrat de transport international de Marchandises par Route (CMR)

    Sandie Calme

  14. Double Taxation Treaties before the Courts of Kazakhstan and Russia

    Sagyngaliy Aidarbayev, Ilya Lifshits

  15. Notes on Contributors

Foreword

The present book, which focuses on courts applying law to cases, results from a vibrant dialogue and support. Our journey began in the fall of 2022 with a proposal of Professor Pierre Chabal, a respected scholar and mentor, to publish an old paper of mine on Interessenjurisprudenz. The paper was completed twelve years ago and remains unpublished. Professor Chabal offered the insightful suggestion that I publish my article in an edited volume, incorporating other scholars’ contributions. His unwavering moral and intellectual support has been the cornerstone of this project and has brought it to fruition.

The project’s official start was hosted in Le Havre in Professor Chabal’s laboratory in mid-January 2023. At this point, the book’s frame and eventual contributors were decided, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the subject from many viewpoints. My task was to elaborate on the academic frame, a comprehensive and systematic approach to the subject matter, and a guide to the collaborators’ development. This frame was designed to ensure a cohesive and in-depth topic exploration, incorporating diverse perspectives and insights. In parallel, I completely rewrote my initial paper and added one more article (both in English, present in this volume, and discussing the Interessenjurisprudenz).

I submitted a questionnaire sheet to contributors, inviting them to write anything they deemed interesting about the interpretations that played out in their national courts. I continued online dialogues with the endeavor’s participants, who steadily provided their papers. From that moment on, I was responsible for editing all papers to create a coherent whole. Throughout the process, Professor Chabal’s advice and direct contribution have been indispensable. I extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to him. I also want to thank the other contributors who have enriched this volume with their unique insights and perspectives. As the editor, I take responsibility for any potential drawbacks of the volume. Finally, as chance would have it, the journey on which this book rests came to its conclusion recently in Le Havre, where I participated in an international seminar on “economic activities and fundamental rights.”

Remus Titiriga

Le Havre, France

November 7, 2024

Introduction: Contextualizing the Contributions in the Volume1

Remus Titiriga University of the West, Romania

This book examines courts’ practice of adopting case law. Contributions have a European-Asian reach and relate primarily to judicial practice in Europe (France, Germany, or the UK ) and Asia (Kazakhstan, Russia). As for the approach, the book’s focus, themes and contributions can be divided into three parts that also shape the volume’s structure. The first group of papers about courts deals with interpretation (methods or mechanisms) in civil and criminal law matters. The second set dwells on the specific application of law by national courts as a result of an extension of the control of constitutionality. The third set deals with courts crossing the borders between legal orders, more precisely, national courts applying specific conventions of international public law. This triple division of the contributions will be equally followed in this Introduction.

Methods and mechanisms of interpretation by the courts in civil and penal matters

Germany’s landscape of legal interpretation

In the first contribution in this volume, “Profile of the Interessenjurisprudenz as a Normative Interpretation Proposed to the German Courts,” Remus Titiriga analyzes a historical legal methodology called Interessenjurisprudenz (Jurisprudence of Interests) proposed by the Tübingen School of legal theory and its founder, Philipp Heck, as a counterpart to normative theories like Begriffsjurisprudenz (Conceptual Doctrine) or School of Free Law. A key theme in this first paper is the tension or gap between normative interpretative theories proposed by legal doctrines and the practical application of such interpretative theories by courts. In Germany, law professors created a normative methodology outlining the methods that courts should adopt. These normative theories of interpretation were later integrated in German courts.

This tension is still evident in the second contribution, “Illustrating how Interessenjurisprudenz Applies in Real German Cases” by Remus Titiriga, which provides a deeper understanding of the practical use of legal doctrine in German courts beginning around 1930. Heck’s proposals were highly controversial initially, but they were increasingly used and widely accepted in the 1920s and early 1930s and became commonplace among civil law practitioners. To understand where Interessenjurisprudenz stands within the German methodological landscape, a deeper examination of the history of legal theories of interpretation in Germany is required.

Germany’s historical developments of concepts and methods for legal interpretation

In the German methodological literature, one must differentiate2 between “methods” and “systems” (or schools) of interpretation.3 The methods came into being through Friedrich Karl von Savigny, the leader of the Historical School, who summarized the state of German legal methodology in his “System of Today‘s Roman Law” of 1840.4 He highlighted four “elements” or methods of interpretation: grammatical, logical, historical, and systematic.5 Later, a new dichotomy emerged: the subjective versus objective methods of interpretation.

This dichotomy between subjective and objective theories of legal interpretation remains a crucial aspect of German legal theory and emerged by the late ninteenth century. The “subjective theory” focuses on determining “the (original) will of the legislator” or “the intention of Parliament,” while the “objective theory” aims to determine the “objective” or “true meaning of the statute” itself.6 The subjective theory of interpretation has certain variations. One variant is known as the original interpretation.7 The other is the “historical-purposive” interpretation of Philipp Heck, the key figure of the Interessenjurisprudenz.

Heck shifted from considering lawmakers’ real and psychological intent to their normative or regulative intent. The correct path in interpreting the law is historical research into commandments and the purpose of norms. These norms resulted in the legislator’s evaluation and weighting of social interests. In other words, Interessenjurisprudenz was using grammatical interpretation, systematical interpretation and historical interpretation (Savigny’s canon) to determine the normative purpose of the historical legislator, not his psychological will. Hence, Interessenjurisprudenz belongs to a particular variant of the subjective theories of interpretation.

On the other hand, an objective theory of interpretation, which is not covered by any contributions in the volume, emerged towards the end of the nineteenth century in Germany. It was formulated almost simultaneously by three of the most important legal scholars of the time: Karl Binding (1841–1920), Adolf Wach (1843–1926), and Josef Kohler (1849–1919).8 This objective theory of interpretation considers how a statute‘s interpretation must be separated from its historical origin. The legal meaning is not what the legislature thinks but what is intrinsic to the objective law.9 The terms of a legal rule should be separated from their historical surroundings, and therefore, according to this theory, the historical interpretation method should be abandoned altogether and placed into the current environment to be interpreted as if they were adopted today.

At the core of objective interpretation is a new method known as objective teolology, which focuses on “the goal pursued” by the statute. This new method comprises two steps. First, there is a search for actual social conditions that the statute should meet. Afterward, according to today’s ideas, there is a search for a more suitable solution. The solution “that is the best response to that purpose” must be chosen from several literal interpretations.10 Since these conditions are subject to change over time, the interpretation of a legal sentence must also follow the change. Interpretation must, therefore, always be related to the present.

A second dichotomy: Interpretation versus lawmaking (rechtfortbuildung)

From the end of the nineteenth century onward, German writings on statutory interpretation emphasize a clear distinction between interpretation itself and the “further development of the law” (Rechtsfortbildung) by the interpreter,11 especially judges.12 The dividing line depends on whether the “borderline of the literal meaning” (Wortsinngrenze) has been crossed.13 Recent German tradition sharply separates interpretation from analogy, placing interpretation on one side of the literal meaning boundary.14

There are intricate categorizations of the various types of Rechtsfortbildung and the “gaps” and “implicit gaps” required to engage in this activity. Once such a gap is identified, the limits on further developing the law to differentiate between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” judicial lawmaking arise. The prevailing German legal view today is that the instrument for such legitimate lawmaking is the analogy and the connected arguments (a fortiori, a contrario). By considering them, the judge does not create law but merely operates within legal loopholes.

Details

Pages
VIII, 214
Publication Year
2025
ISBN (PDF)
9783034355575
ISBN (ePUB)
9783034355582
ISBN (Softcover)
9783034355551
DOI
10.3726/b22955
Language
English
Publication date
2025 (December)
Keywords
Begriffsjurisprudenz Interessenjurisprudenz School of Exegesis normative resolutions of interpretation French Question Prioritaire de Constitutionnalité (QPC) UK courts and the Human Rights Act Convention CMR Double Taxation Treaties
Published
Bruxelles, Berlin, Chennai, Lausanne, New York, Oxford, 2025. viii, 214 pp.
Product Safety
Peter Lang Group AG

Biographical notes

Remus Titiriga (Volume editor)

Remus TITIRIGA is a Senior law researcher at the University of the West, in Romania. He was professor at Inha University in South Korea (2012-2024) and at the American University in Bosnia Herzegovina (2010-2011). He authored La Comparaison, technique essentielle du juge europeen (2011) and Legal Reasoning and Argument. A handbook (2024). Remus TITIRIGA est chercheur principal en droit à l'Université de l'Ouest, en Roumanie. Il a été professeur à l’Université Inha en Corée du Sud (2012-2024) et à l’Université américaine de Bosnie-Herzégovine (2010-2011). Il est l'auteur de La Comparaison, technique essentielle du juge européen (2011) et de Legal Reasoning and Argument. Un manuel (2024).

Previous

Title: Courts applying the law / Tribunaux appliquant la loi