An Introduction to German Legal Culture

On the composition of the Holy Roman Empire, see Zimmermann (2019), pp. 2 f.; Haferkamp (2012), pp. 835 ff.

See for the applicability of Reichsrecht and discussion on its status Schröder (2020), p. 22.

One can find an overview of the comprehensive legal historical research done on the Reichskammergericht in Oestmann (2009), pp. 1 ff.; Battenberg and Schildt (2010), pp. 1 ff.

See Hinghofer-Szalkay (2014), p. 223.

Tomuschat (1972). More open for the existence of unwritten constitutional law, Wolff (2000).

Helland and Koch (2014), pp. 277 ff. with further references.

As an illustration, the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) is a project that is inseparably connected to Christian von Bar and his Study Group on a European Civil Code located in Osnabrück.

See, e.g. Hess (1998); Bieber et al. (2015).

Schröder (2020), Vol. I, pp. 23 f.

Schröder (2020), Vol. I, pp. 196 ff.

The situation of Germany before 1877 resembles in certain (but not all) aspects the situation of the European Union today. The diversity of legal systems within the borders of the newly established Reich had to be harmonised before a new unified legal order could be implemented. Since politics was not considered fit for this task, the construction of the law was mainly driven by an alleged unpolitical legal science that saw its task as reconstructing the whole legal order by identifying common features of the different legal orders involved by analysing their historical roots. A next step was adapting these features to the legal reality at hand and thus establishing a legal framework that was supposed to provide the necessary preconditions for a coherent legal system. Coherence of concepts in different codes and other legislation was regarded as such a precondition. In the twentieth century this enterprise was often misleadingly described as jurisprudence of concepts (‘Begriffsjurisprudenz’). The aim of most legal scholars in the nineteenth century was rather to establish a coherent framework from a multitude of overlapping legal orders than to deduce law mechanically from concepts. In the contemporary European debate concerning a common frame of reference in private law, some fairly identical ideas, approaches, and discussions can be observed. See, on this, the respective articles by Joachim Rückert, Hans-Peter Haferkamp, Ralf Seinecke, and others (Rückert and Seinecke 2017a).

Haferkamp (2014), p. 88.

On the complex and often misleading label ‘Begriffsjurisprudenz’, see Rückert and Seinecke (2017b), ‘Zwölf Methodenregeln für den Ernstfall’ in Rückert and Seinecke (2017a), p. 42. See also Haferkamp (2014), pp. 87 f.

As a protagonist for this approach, Professor Gunther Teubner (born 1944) can be mentioned, see Sahm (2017). See also Schröder (2020), Vol. II, pp. 145 ff.

These elements refer to the wider concept of legal culture and are not part of the operationalised concept of legal culture as introduced by Sunde (2010), p. 20; see also Sunde (this volume), Sect. 6.

Data based on the figures of the Federal Statistical Bureau (Statistisches Bundesamt) https://​www.​statistikportal.​de/​de/​bevoelkerung/​flaeche-und-bevoelkerung.

Furthermore, we must bear in mind that just a few decades ago the population density in Norway was even much lower than today.

According to the Federal Centre for Political Education (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung https://​www.​bpb.​de/​nachschlagen/​Zahlen-und-fakten/​soziale-situation-in-deutschland/​61646/​migrationshinter​grund-i, the combined number of foreigners (9.9 million, 12.1%) and Germans with migration background (10.9 million 13.3%) is 25.5% of the total population of Germany.

Two of the most successful car producers in Germany, VW and BMW, were family until recently enterprises.

For a brief overview of the German court system, see, e.g. Branahl (2005), pp. 33–35, or Freckmann and Wegerich (1999), pp. 129 ff. Foster and Sule (2010) give a more detailed introduction, see pp. 66–88. In addition, there are some optional courts described in Art. 96 of the Basic Law. See Kämmerer (2012), pp. 153–154.

On all forms of conflict resolution from a historical perspective and on a comparative basis, see Decock et al. (2021).

Helland and Koch (2014), pp. 267–322.

BL Art. 20 (2): ‘All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive and judicial bodies’.

Translated into English by the author BL Art. 92: ‘The judicial power shall be vested in the judges; it shall be exercised by the Federal Constitutional Court, by the federal courts provided for in this Basic Law, and by the courts of the states.’

See Basic Law Art. 95 (1).

The competences of the Federal Constitutional Court are outlined in Art. 93.

BL Art. 95.

See https://​www.​bundesgerichtsho​f.​de: I. Civil Senate: Intellectual property; II. Civil Senate Company Law; III Civil Senate: Liability of public Authorities and real estate agent law; IV Civil Senate: inheritance law; V Civil Senate: Real estate Law; VI Civil Senate: Tort Law; VII Civil Senate: Construction mandate law and Architect Law; VIII Civil Senate: Sales of goods law and lease of property; IX Civil Senate: Insolvency law; X Civil Senate: Patent Law; XI: Bank- and Security law; XII Civil Senate: Family law and Protection of industrial Property.

See http://​www.​bverwg.​de/​en/​rechtsprechung/​verwaltungsgeric​htsbarkeit/​aufbau-der verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit.

The Geschäftsverteilungsplan of the BverwG may be downloaded from this site: https://​www.​bverwg.​de/​rechtsprechung/​geschaeftsvertei​lungsplan. The division of tasks is determined by the presidency of each court before the start of each professional year pursuant to the Court Constitution Act § 21.

Introduced by Reichsbeamtengesetz v. 31. 3. 1873 (RGBL, p. 61).

See the commentary on the Basic Law by Jachmann-Michel (2019), p. 88. EL August 2019 to Art. 95 para. 41: ‘Die Errichtung solcher Sondergerichte ist eng mit dem Wandel zum modernen Interventions- und Leistungsstaat verbunden, bedeutet die Herausbildung spezieller Gerichtsbarkeiten doch eine sachlich angemessene Reaktion auf die Zunahme von Staatsaufgaben. Im Interesse einer effektiven Wahrnehmung dieser vielfältigen Staatsaufgaben erschien es geboten, bestimmte Sachgebiete bzw. Personengruppen von vornherein einer bundeseinheitlichen Gerichtsbarkeit zu unterwerfen’. See also Schulze-Fielitz (2008), para. 1.

The original wording of BL Art. 95 was still based on the assumption that the Federal Republic would have just one Supreme Court: ‘(1) Zur Wahrung der Einheit des Bundesrechts wird ein Oberstes Bundesgericht errichtet. (2) Das Oberste Bundesgericht entscheidet in Fällen, deren Entscheidung für die Einheitlichkeit der Rechtsprechung der oberen Bundesgerichte von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung ist. (3) Über die Berufung der Richter des Obersten Bundesgerichtes entscheidet der Bundesjustizminister gemeinsam mit einem Richterwahlausschuß, der aus den Landesjustizministern und einer gleichen Anzahl von Mitgliedern besteht, die vom Bundestage gewählt werden. (4) Im Übrigen werden die Verfassung des Obersten Bundesgerichts und sein Verfahren durch Bundesgesetz geregelt’.

With an amendment of the Basic Law in 1968, the wording of Art. 95 was modified and the single Supreme Court also disappeared now officially. For further details on the amendments of Art. 95, see Jachmann-Michel (2019), para. 56.

See https://​www.​destatis.​de/​DE/​Themen/​Staat/​Justiz-Rechtspflege/​Tabellen/​gerichtsverfahre​n.​html (updated 25 October 2019).

Cf. §§ 20 ff. Labor Law Court Act.

Constitution of Courts Act § 105.

Constitution of Courts Act § 122 and §§ 132, 139.

See Fig. 1 above.

Constitution of Courts Act § 74 (2); 74a; 74c.

Constitution of Courts Act § 24.

Constitution of Courts Act § 23 No. 1 in conjunction with Civil Procedure Code § 3, providing the Court with the right to rule on the value of the case on grounds of its own discretion.

Constitution of Courts Act § 23 Nr. 2. An exclusive jurisdiction of the local courts is established concerning the following disputes: disputes concerning claims arising out of a lease of living accommodation or concerning the existence of such a lease. The same applies for disputes between travelers and providers of food or lodging, carriers, shippers or passage brokers at ports of embarkation concerning bills for food or lodging, carriage charges, passage monies, carriage of travelers and their belongings and loss of or damage to the latter, as well as disputes between travelers and artisans arising on the occasion of travel; disputes under Section 43, Numbers 1–4 and 6 of the Condominium Act; disputes concerning damage caused by game and claims arising out of a contract for a life annuity, life endowment or life interest or for vacating of premises that is connected with the transfer of possession of a piece of land.

Courts Constitution Act § 71 (2).

Courts Constitution Act § 118.

See https://​www.​bmjv.​de/​SharedDocs/​Gesetzgebungsver​fahren/​DE/​Musterfeststellu​ngsklage.​html; https://​www.​bmjv.​de/​SharedDocs/​Gesetzgebungsver​fahren/​Dokumente/​BgBl_​Musterfeststellu​ngsklage.​pdf;jsessionid=​DC3B3C50CBFBAB96​42842F24A96FFA4B​.​2_​cid324?​_​_​blob=​publicationFile&​v=​1.

Recommendation (2013/396/EU) of 26 June 2013 as part of the recent EU policy ‘New Deal for Customers’.

See the final statement here: https://​www.​djt.​de/​fileadmin/​downloads/​72/​Beschluesse_​gesamt_​final.​pdf.

See ibid, para. C 15 and the underlying reasoning of the referent on this topic https://​www.​djt.​de/​fileadmin/​downloads/​72/​72_​thesen_​180728.​pdf.

For a comprehensive discussion of the legislative intentions and purposes as well as the underlying policy considerations, see Weimann (2018), pp. 14, 71 ff.

Until the 1960s, the caseload of the courts was quite manageable. Diverging jurisprudence was therefore regarded as a minor problem and the idea to establish a special Supreme Court to handle those cases was rejected. Instead, a Grand Senate of all Federal Supreme Courts in Germany (Gemeinsamer Senat der obersten Gerichtshöfe) was introduced in 1968. The court was established by Federal Act (Gesetz zur Wahrung der Einheitlichkeit der Rechtsprechung der obersten Gerichtshöfe des Bundes) enacted 19 June 1968.

Constitution of Courts Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) § 132. The same applies for the highest courts on the state level (Oberlandesgerichte), in cases where they want to deviate from established case law of another high appeal court or of a federal supreme court. See Constitution of Courts Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) § 121 (2).

From 2000 till 2019 there have been only four rulings by the common Senate of all Federal Supreme Courts in Germany, this institution has therefore never gained the function of a Federal Supreme Court.

On this collapse from an inside perspective, see Haffner (2000).

Collings (2015), pp. 71 ff.; Limbach (2000).

Concerning the debate on whether or not legal transplants are even possible, see Siems (2018), pp. 229 ff.

Bundesverfassungsgerichtsentscheidung (BVerfGE 34, pp. 269 ff.)

BL Art. 2 (1) in conjunction with Art. 1 (1).

But there were critical voices as well, see, e.g. Diedrichsen (1998), pp. 171, 172 ff.

For details on this case and its significance especially for the German legal method, see Helland and Koch (2014), p. 269 with further references. On contra legem interpretation in Norwegian law, see Helland (2014b), p. 17.

BL Art. 1 (3) and 20 (2).

Interesting discussions on this topic contains Krüper et al. (2019).

When the Basic Law was enacted in 1949, it was regarded as a provisional constitution, which was supposed to be replaced with a new constitution in case of a reunification of Germany and a final peace agreement with the Allies.

Cf. BL Art. 21 (2), BVerfGE 2, p. 1: ‘Freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung im Sinne des Art. 21 II GG ist eine Ordnung, die unter Ausschluss jeglicher Gewalt- und Willkürherrschaft eine rechtsstaatliche Herrschaftsordnung auf der Grundlage der Selbstbestimmung des Volkes nach dem Willen der jeweiligen Mehrheit und der Freiheit und Gleichheit darstellt. Zu den grundlegenden Prinzipien dieser Ordnung sind mindestens zu rechnen: die Achtung vor den im Grundgesetz konkretisierten Menschenrechten, vor allem vor dem Recht der Persönlichkeit auf Leben und freie Entfaltung, die Volkssouveränität, die Gewaltenteilung, die Verantwortlichkeit der Regierung, die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verwaltung, die Unabhängigkeit der Gerichte, das Mehrparteienprinzip und die Chancengleichheit für alle politischen Parteien mit dem Recht auf verfassungsmäßige Bildung und Ausübung einer Opposition’.

A study on the interrelationship between confidence and respect has been undertaken by Sternberg et al. (2015).

See https://​www.​bundesverfassung​sgericht.​de/​EN/​Homepage/​home_​node.​html.

Haferkamp (2014), p. 90.

See http://​www.​bundesverfassung​sgericht.​de/​DE/​Verfahren/​Jahresstatistike​n/​2015/​gb2015/​AIV-2.​pdf?​_​_​blob=​publicationFile&​v=​1.

Judgment from 17. des. 2014 – 1 BvL 21/12.

BL Art 3.

Cf. Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz § 25 (4).

Ruling 26. February 2020, 2 BvR 2347/15 (criminalisation of assisted Suicide services is unconstitutional; and ruling 24. March 2021, 1 BvR 2656/18 regarding unconstitutionality of the Climate Protection Act in Germany.

This subsection is partly based on Helland (2014a).

Zimmermann (2006), IX ff.

Schmidt-Bleibtreu et al. (2011), Art. 20, 691 (mn. 91).

For a brief overview of German legal sources, see Robbers (2006), pp. 19 ff.; Maurer (2011), p. 67, and for a more thorough presentation, see ibid pp. 68 ff. See also Bydlinski (1991), pp. 213 ff. He focused primarily on the Austrian legal method, but as demonstrated by Hinghofer-Szalkay (2014), this corresponds in many respects to the one in Germany, and Bydlinski is also considered an authority by German legal scholars, although with some reservations. The references in this book refer to those parts of Bydlinski’s writings which are considered equally valid for Germany.

Cf. BL Art. 70.

Cf. BL Arts. 71–75.

The most important codes are: Civil Code = Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch; Penal Code = Strafgesetzbuch; Code of Commerce = Handelsgesetzbuch; all procedural codes are federal law as well, e. g., Civil Procedure Code = Zivilprozessordnung; Criminal Procedure Code = Strafprozessordnung; Procedural Code for Administrative Law = Verwaltunggerichtgesetz.

See BL Art. 74 containing an enumerative list of legal matters that the Constitution regards as in the direct interest of the states.

BL Art. 79 (1).

BL Art. 79 (3): ‘Eine Änderung dieses Grundgesetzes, durch welche die Gliederung des Bundes in Länder, die grundsätzliche Mitwirkung der Länder bei der Gesetzgebung oder die in den Artikeln 1 und 20 niedergelegten Grundsätze berührt werden, ist unzulässig’.

Alone 100,000 just concerning tax-matters. All numbers are based on the information from Parliament’s website for the legislative period 2013–2017: https://​www.​bundestag.​de/​parlament/​aufgaben/​gesetzgebung_​neu/​gesetzgebung/​weg-255468.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 18.

See Rückert (2003), pp. 33 ff.

BL Art. 20 (3).

So still Larenz (1991), p. 352.

Rückert and Seinecke (2017b), p. 41.

BL Art. 20 (3): ‘…die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung sind an Gesetz und Recht gebunden’.

BL Art. 1 (3): ‘Die nachfolgenden Grundrechte binden Gesetzgebung, vollziehende Gewalt und Rechtsprechung als unmittelbar geltendes Recht’.

BL Art. 20 (3). ‘Rule of law’ is the common English translation both of the German term ‘Rechtsstaat’ and its equivalent Norwegian ‘rettsstat’. However, despite being the closest available English term, the English concept covers only the technical part of the German concept. Both of these also have a substantive element: a state is only a Rechtsstaat/rettsstat if it respects certain fundamental values, among them human rights. On the German concept of Rechtsstaat, see Hesse (1999), pp. 86 ff., especially p. 89; on the similar Norwegian rettsstat, see Bernt and Mæhle (2007), pp. 142 ff.; more recently Mæhle and Aarli (2016), p. 121.

To this effect, see, i.e. Hesse (1999), p. 87.

On when the answer can be said to follow directly from the wording of an Act, see Bydlinski (2005), pp. 12 ff.; Schwintowski (2005), pp. 54 ff.

E.g. labour law, see Simon and Funk-Baker (2009), p. 21.

Cf. Italian Civil Code Art. 7; Spain Civil Code Art. 3.

The Constitution of Courts Act § 137 contains a general competence of the Supreme Courts and especially the Grand Senate to develop the law; this norm does, however, not manifest a specific approach to legal method, see Rückert (2017a), p. 590, para. 1475.

Bydlinski (1991), pp. 472 ff. brings a good overview of the different recognised approaches to establishing such guidelines. He mentions, inter alia, analogy, antithesis, teleological reduction, and universal principles of law as possible bases for a further development of the law. On how to identify a Lücke and how to deal with it once it has been identified, see also, e.g. Larenz and Canaris (1995), pp. 187 ff.

Tomuschat (1972), p. 39.

See Robbers (2006), p. 22; Maurer (2011), pp. 75 ff.

BL Art. 20 (3).

For a different approach, see the methodological meta-norm in the Swiss Civil Code Art. 1 (2) which says that a judge in the absence of a written legal provision and pertinent customary law has to act as if she or he would be the legislator.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 19.

See Larenz and Canaris (1995), pp. 187 f.; Schermaier (2006), p. 283: ‘Despite the increasing importance of case law and the diminishing importance of oretical [Sic!] legal scholarship, the German legal system is not based on case law. Judgment does not bind either the supreme courts or lower courts’.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 48 rather clearly states: ‘The only formal source of law, of course, is legislation’.

On the concept of source of law in Germany, see Helland and Koch (2014), p. 196.

Kirchner (2017), p. 503, para. 1295.

On the constitutional limits of ‘Rechtsfortbildung’, see, e.g. Kruse (2019). See also Larenz (1991), pp. 350 ff.

On the definition of an official headnote, see the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice of 21 November 1991 – I ZR 190/89: ‘Als amtlich verfaßt im Sinne des § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG ist ein Leitsatz dann anzusehen, wenn er von einem Mitglied des Spruchkörpers mit dessen Billigung formuliert und der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht worden ist. Unerheblich ist, ob eine dienstliche Verpflichtung zur Abfassung von Leitsätzen besteht. Entscheidend ist allein, ob der Inhalt der Verlautbarung erkennbar dem Gericht zuzurechnen ist, also vom Träger der öffentlichen Gewalt herrührt. (“Leitsätze”)’.

Lilie (1993), p. 25; critical to the function of obiter dicta is the former president of the Supreme Court for Labour Law, Dörner (2007), p. 58. Lamprecht (1998), p. 1040.

See Constitution of Federal Constitutional Court Act § 31 (2) in conjunction with § 13 Nr. 6, 6a, 11, 12 and 14.

See above (n 118).

Compare the German Civil Code (BGB) §§ 280 and 313 in the revised version of the Civil Code since 2002.

Maurer (2011), p. 80.

Cf. Haferkamp (2014), p. 92, concluding his article by stating: ‘Germany has remained the country of legal science’.

On the impact of Savigny on the idea of codification, see Smits (2002), pp. 77 ff.

On his impact on the methodology-discourse, see Joachim Rückert (2017b).

Emphasising the political neutrality of the Civil Code, Lundmark (2012), p. 133: ‘As the German code was understood to be the product of a logical process, it was seen as consisting of pure concepts that were politically neutral in content’. Zimmermann (2019) Chap. 1.05 underlines the flexibility of the scientific tradition, in which the Civil code was embedded: ‘The BGB was regarded as part of a tradition significantly shaped by legal scholarship. The phenomenon of scholarly “development” of the law was quite familiar to the draftsmen of the code’. Jakobs (1983) characterised the BGB as a codification ‘which does not contain the source of law in itself but has its source in the legal scholarship from which it was created’. The Civil code was designed to provide a framework for an organically progressive legal science. The idea of enacting a prohibition on commenting upon the BGB (as existed with regard to the Prussian Code of 1794) was alien to the draftsmen of the BGB: as alien as the equally outdated idea that it might be possible to lay down a specific rule for every imaginable situation.

For literature on the Wertungsjurisprudenz, see Rückert (2017a), pp. 607 f. for further references.

Zimmermann (2019), Chap. 1.10 E.

Djeffal (2013), pp. 463–466.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 28.

For a comparative analysis of the relationship between legal scholarship and legal practice in Germany and France, see Masing et al. (2019).

For a different view see Schermaier (2006), p. 283 holds that the influence of legal scholars from the 1930s lost its impact on German law and that today the judiciary is developing the law.

This subchapter is based in part on Helland (2014a), pp. 188 ff.

This becomes obvious when Josef Esser, an advocate for a hermeneutical approach to legal methods, admits that judicial interest is not primarily a hermeneutical one (Verstehensinteresse), but a systematic one (Ordnungsinteresse), see Esser (1990), pp. 356 f.; see also Schäfer (2017), para. 789.

Haferkamp (2014).

BL Art. 20 (3).

BL Art. 20 and Art. 79 (3).

See Zimmermann (2019), Chap. 1.10 E with further references.

Larenz and Canaris (1995), pp. 187 ff., explicitly on p. 232.

This assumption is not uncontested in Germany; however, it can still be regarded the prevailing ideal.

BVerfGE 34, 269.

Obviously, not all legal provisions are sufficiently precise to provide a clearly predictable solution when seen in isolation, or even when considered in their systematic context. This is particularly true of constitutional provisions such as the Basic Rights, but is also the case with general clauses such as § 823 of the BGB. In these cases, the courts may rely on case law to achieve a more predictable application of the law. In the case of the Basic Rights, the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court will as a rule be decisive for the outcome, just as that of the BGH will normally determine the interpretation of general clauses in the Civil Code.

Radbruch (1999), pp. 199 f.

Cf. Zimmermann (2006), Chap. IX.

See Rückert and Seinecke (2017b), pp. 50 f., paras. 72 ff. who dedicate the last of their 12 method rules for practitioners to justice: ‘Vergiss nicht die Gerechtigkeit’.

Cf. Sect. 7.

See in more detail Helland and Koch (2014); sHelland (2014a).

Helland (2014a), p. 213; Larenz and Canaris (1995), p. 232.

On the interpretation of the Basic Law, see Hesse (1999), pp. 29 f. (mn. 78) and 31 (mn. 80; on the limitations applicable to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament in conformity with the Basic Law). See also Helland (2014a), pp. 211–212. On the interpretation of Acts of Parliament in general, see Larenz and Canaris (1999), pp. 138 f. (on the interpretation of Acts of Parliament), pp. 185 and 232 (on the development of the law by judges when there is a gap in legislation).

Larenz and Canaris (1999), p. 188.

A comprehensive overview is provided by Rückert (2017a).

See, e.g. Esser (1972). Such approaches are also promoted by scholars applying an economic analysis of law or theories of ‘Institutionenökonomie’, see, e.g. Assmann et al. (1978); Richter and Furubotn (2014).

The main focus on legal argumentation can be found in Alexy (1978); Neumann (2001), p. 139; Neumann (2008). Rückert (2017a) argued that: ‘Die Argumentationsjurisprudenz will also als Theorie gelesen werden, nicht als Dogmatik oder Politik und auch nicht als Methodenlehre’.

The most prominent scholar promoting such an empirical-sociological approach is Günther Teubner, see Teubner (2017).

Esser (1956), pp. 24 f.

Ibid, p. 311.

BVerfGE 7, p. 198.

For details, see Rückert (2017a), pp. 582 ff.

Ibid, p. 585, para 1464.

See Schröder (2020), p. 1.

See, for example, the explanation of the non-binding nature of case law that Robbers (2006), pp. 20 f. provides.

Simon and Funk-Baker (2009), p. 21; Robbers (2006), p. 19; Foster and Sule (2010), p. 37.

Simon and Funk-Baker (2009), p. 21; Robbers (2006), p. 22; Foster and Sule (2010), p. 38.

See Radbruch (1999), p. 201.

Robbers (2006), pp. 20 f. on the role of caselaw in legal argumentation. See also Foster and Sule (2010), pp. 39 ff., who, in light of the de facto role of caselaw in legal argumentation find it hard ‘to completely ignore judicial law making as a source of law’ (p. 42).

The ongoing debate concerning whether or not the European Convention on Human Rights, which was incorporated into German law through a Zustimmungsgesetz—a particular form of Act of Parliament—in 1952, is in fact constitutional law or ‘merely’ on the level of ordinary legislation may serve as a helpful illustration. Although the Federal Constitutional Court has consistently maintained the latter opinion, voices in legal science continue to claim that the opposite is true de lege lata. See Frowein (1985), pp. 31 ff.; Giegerich (2006), pp. 82 ff.; Grabenwarter and Pabel (2012), pp. 19 ff.; Haratsch (2000), p. 62; Haß (2006), pp. 113 ff.; Heckötter (2008), pp. 92 ff.; Uerpmann (1993), pp. 78 ff. From an outsider’s point of view, this does at times make it extremely difficult to separate between scientific discussions of the law de lege lata and de lege ferenda.

This is an important part of the reason the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are not considered binding beyond the scope of the adjudicated case (ECHR Art. 46). The FCC’s demand in Görgülü (BVerfGE 111, 307) that all German courts must take ECtHR judgments into account (paras. 47 ff.) The mainstream German opinion is voiced by, i.e. Haß (2006), p. 167; Klein (2000), pp. 706 ff.; Heckötter (2008), pp. 42–43. However, representatives of the opposite opinion can be found also in Germany, such as Zoellner (2009), pp. 130 ff.

On the different contents of the German and Norwegian concept of legal rule, see Helland and Koch (2014), pp. 270 f.

Larenz and Canaris (1995), pp. 71 ff. Although other terms exist, such as the term Fallnorm which is used by Fikentscher (1975), p. 202. As pointed out by Larenz and Canaris (1995), p. 254, however, Fikentscher’s term Fallnorm is not entirely synonymous to Rechtssatz.

Henninger (2014), p. 432.

On the importance of Savigny for adoption of a coherent theory on legal method in Germany, see Reutter (2011), pp. 5 ff.

Cf. BL Art. 20 (3).

See Zimmermann (2019), § 1.10, Chap. 27.

Grote (2014), pp. 334 ff. with further references.

Section 7.

See also Zimmermann (2019), p. 28.

Ibid 36.

For a historical overview, see Rüfner (2011), pp. 3 ff. From a comparative perspective, see Vogenauer (2012), pp. 1077 ff.

Rüfner (2011), pp. 5 f.

Thomasius (1699), Cap. I.

Cf. Gesetzes zur Verhütung von Mißbräuchen auf dem Gebiete der Rechtsberatung, enacted 13 December 1935 (RGBL I S. 1478).

Cf. EU Directive 2005/36 (ABL EG Nr. I. 255, S. 22).

Only a general framework is provided by federal legislation, cf. German Judiciary Act §§ 5 ff., Federal Lawyers’ Act § 4; Federal Act on Notaries Public § 5.

Overemphasising the impact of federalism, Zimmermann (2019), p. 39.

On the constant debate concerning reforms of the legal education see ibid, pp. 36 f. with further references.

The criminal code (§ 134).

EU Directive No. 2005/36/EG.

Cf. Gesetz über außergerichtliche Rechtsdienstleistungen § 1 (1): ‘Dieses Gesetz regelt die Befugnis, außergerichtliche Rechtsdienstleistungen zu erbringen. Es dient dazu, die Rechtsuchenden, den Rechtsverkehr und die Rechtsordnung vor unqualifizierten Rechtsdienstleistungen zu schützen’. This purpose has been criticised by Ulrich Everling, who in a report to the German confederation of lawyers (Deutscher Juristentag) claimed that Germany is the country with the strictest rules on exercising a legal profession. See Gutachten C zum 58. Deutschen Juristentag, München 1990, pp. 69 ff., C 91. However, most lawyers seem to be of the opinion that the new rules are not strict enough, cf., e.g. Römermann (2006), pp. 3025 ff.

See http://​de.​wikiversity.​org/​wiki/​Liste_​der_​juristischen_​Fakultäten_​in_​Deutschland, assessed 11. December 2019.

See Statistisches Bundesamt—Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.4 Bildung und Kultur—Personal an Hochschulen, p. 186.

The results of the survey are published by Marcel Gröls and Tanja Gröls. Ein Ranking juristischer Fachzeitschriften. Juristische Zeitschrift 17/2009, pp. 488 ff.]

Court decisions and other legal materials including acts of parliament can be found in the database Juris, and the publisher Beck issues helpful manuals containing copies of all relevant legislation pertinent to a specific area of law.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 41.

Illustratively, the German title for this exam is Richterexamen or Assessorexamen.

Zimmermann (2001), pp. 3 ff.

See, e.g. Schmidt Kessel (2012), pp. 153 ff. with reference to the comprehensive literature on this topic; see also Hondius et al. (2004). Today the optimism has yielded to pragmatism or even total opposition. Nevertheless, the harmonisation projects have contributed to a large-scale consciousness of the common roots of the European legal cultures and promoted disciplines like legal history and legal comparisons. See also Zimmermann (2019), p. 46. Arguing for academically supervised restatements of European Contract Law, Jansen (2012). The most recent discussion concerns a European Code of Commercial Law, cf. two leaders in (2019) Vol. 27 Zeitschrift für Europäische Privatrecht.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 47.

Zeitschrift für Europäische Privatrecht contains regular reports on pertinent case law, the most recent is published in Vol. 27 (2019). From this volume, see Kohler et al. (2019), pp. 126 ff.; on new EU legislation: ‘Rechtsakte der Europäischen Union auf den Gebiet des Europäischen Privatrechts 2018’ 836; see also Vol. 25, pp. 140 ff.

Zimmermann (2019), p. 47 notes: ‘Yet, all these development shave not fundamentally changed the specifically German approach towards legal education, legal thinking, and legal writing. A comprehensive internationalisation is still one of the challenges faced by legal scholarship in Germany today’. Significantly, Zimmermann regards handling the challenges of internationalisation a task for legal scholars, not primarily the legislator or the judiciary.

So explicitly in the ruling of the FCC in the Görgülü-case BVerfGE 111, 307, para. 34: ‘[…] shown by the existence and wording of Article 25 and Article 59 (2) of the Basic Law’; see for further details Helland (2012), p. 173.

BL Arts. 25 and 59 (2).

BL Art. 25.

Cf. Art. 59 (2): ‘Verträge, welche die politischen Beziehungen des Bundes regeln oder sich auf Gegenstände der Bundesgesetzgebung beziehen, bedürfen der Zustimmung oder der Mitwirkung der jeweils für die Bundesgesetzgebung zuständigen Körperschaften in der Form eines Bundesgesetzes’.

BL Art. 59. Emphasising this difference is Helland (2012), pp. 173 ff.

Gesetz über die Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBL) 1952 Vol. II, p. 685.

The different lines of argumentation are presented in more detail and with references in Helland (2012), pp. 177 ff.

BL Art. 1 (2): ‘Das deutsche Volk bekennt sich darum zu unverletzlichen und unveräusserlichen Menschenrechten als Grundlage jeder menschlichen Gemeinschaft, des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit in der Welt’.

BL Art. 1 (2).

Helland (2012), p. 181, notes 504 and 505.

BL Art. 2 (1). References in ibid, p. 182.

BL Art. 25.

BVerfGE 23, 288 (317).

BL Art. 25. Helland (2012), p. 186.

BVerfGE 74, 358 (370); BVerfGE 82, 106 (120) and lately acknowledged in BVerfGE 111, 307 para. 31.

For references, see Helland (2012), p. 188, note 540.

For a discussion of this problem in more detail, see Grote (2014).

BVerfGE 111, 307 (321 ff.); BVerfGE 128, 326 (348 ff.).

BVerfGE 111, 307. On this specific issue from a Norwegian perspective, see Helland (2012), pp. 282 ff.

BL Art. 24: ‘(1) The Federation may transfer sovereign power to international organizations by an ordinary Act of Parliament’.

Cf. Art. 288 TFEU.

BVerfGE 73, 339 (366); 75, 223 (244 f.).

Art. 26 TFEU.

BL Art. 101 (1).

BVerfGE 75, 233 (245); on the guidelines put forward by the FCC concerning this issue, see Grote (2014), pp. 330 ff.

Flessner (2002), pp. 14–23; Henninger (2009) with further references.

Just some contributions to this debate in Germany: Schöbel (2011), pp. 253 ff.; Kilian (2010); Zaczyk (2008), pp. 1 ff; Konzen (2010), pp. 241 ff.; Konzen and Schliemann (2008), pp. 343 ff.; Baldus et al. (2011), pp. 281 ff.; Deutscher Juristen-Fakultätentag (2007); Huber (2010); Fischer and Wünsch (2006); Ranieri (2006); Ischdonat (2010); Senn (2010), pp. 218 ff. Cf. for a very reluctant approach, Beschluss des 90. Juristenfakultätentags vom 3./4.6. 2010 (DJFT 2010/I); see also http://​www.​djft.​de.

See http://​www.​justiz.​de/​justizministerko​nferenz/​index.​php.

Cf. the first sentence of the Preamble to the BL: ‘Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law’. Compare furthermore BL Art. 1 (2), above n 213.