Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T03:14:49.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Law and the Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

T. Koopmans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For a long time it looked as though comparative law was a matter for academic research, difficult and, surely, very interesting; beautiful to know something about, but not immediately relevant to the daily life of the law. Practising lawyers would admit the importance of comparative law in theory, but they would add that they themselves were, of course, too much occupied with the latest cases on trade marks, or with recent developments in the law of negligence.1

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 545 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See also Cruz, Peter de. A Modern Approach to Comparative Law (1993), chap.1.Google Scholar

2. See Hartkamp, A. S.. “Statutory Law Making: The New Civil Code of the Netherlands”, in Towards Universal Law, Trends in National, European and International Law Making, Yearbook of the Faculty of Law. Uppsala. 5 (1995). p.151.Google Scholar

3. See Pierre Pescatore. “Le recours. par la Cour de Justice des Communautés euro-péennes. à des normes déduites de la comparaison des droits des Etats Membres” (1980) R.I.D.C. 337.

4. See the famous Case 26/62. Van Gend en Loos [1963] E.C.R. 12.

5. Case 178/84, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany [ 1987] E.C.R. 1227 (“purity” of beer).

6. Case C–470/93. Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe. Weekly Bulletin of the Court of Justice 20/95.

7. Case 155/79. A.M. & S. [1982] E.C.R. 1575.

8. Commission Decision 79/760 of 6 July 1979 (1979) O.J. L 199.

9. See Coing, Helmut. “European Common Law: Historical Foundations”, in Cappelletti, Mauro (Ed.). New Perspectives for a Common Law of Europe (1978). p.31.Google Scholar

10. See my “Judicial Activism and Procedural Law” (1993) 1 Eur. Rev. Private L. 69.

11. Van Krenningen v. Bessem Hoge Raad. 21 May 1943. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (NJ.) 1943. 455.

12. See Stolker, C. J. J. M.. “Wrongful Life: The Limits of Liability and Beyond” (1994) 43 I.C.L.Q. 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. DES-Daughters Hoge Raad, 9 Oct. 1992, N.J. 1994. 535.

14. 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980): cert, denied 449 U.S. 412 (1980).

15. Art.6:99. Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek).

16. See E. Hondius. “A Dutch Case: Pharmaceutical Companies Jointly and Severally Liable” [1994] Consum. L.J. 40. See also case notes and comments in (1994) 2 Eur. Rev. Private L. 409–469.

17. See also Art.2, s.2. EEC Directive 76/207 on equal treatment of men and women in employment (1976) O.J. L39.

18. Thus the Federal Constitutional Court as early as 1951: Entscheidungen des Bundes-verfassungsgerichts. 1.10 (Südweststaat).

19. See Lusky, L. and Botein, M.. “The Law of Equality in the United States”, in Koop-mans, T. (Ed.), Constitutional Protection of Equality (1975). chap.2.Google Scholar

20. European Court of Human Rights. 21 Feb. 1986. James. Ser.A–98. and 8 July 1987. Lithgow. Ser.A–102.

21. Mathilda and Others v. Rooms-Katholiek Centraal Schoolbestuur and Another Hoge Raad. 7 May 1993, NJ. 1995. 259.

22. White and Another v. Jones and Others [1995] 1 All E.R. 691.

23. In particular to Markesinis, B. S., The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Introduction (3rd edn, 1994).Google Scholar

24. I refer to Pothier, R. J., Traité des obligations (new edn, 1873). Pothier lived from 1699 to 1772.Google Scholar

25. See Pound, Roscoe, The Spirit of the Common Law (1921). chap.VIII.Google Scholar

26. See also Heringa, A. W.. “The Separation of Powers Argument”, in Bakker, R. et al. (Eds). Judicial Control: Comparative Essays on Judicial Review (1995).Google Scholar