Comparative Legal Reasoning and European Law

This work deals with the use of comparative law in European legal adjudication. It describes the different forms of the use of comparative law in legal reasoning, argumentation and justification in several national legal orders and in European level legal institutions.

1: Introduction.- 1.General Remarks.- 2.Comparative Law in the Context of European Law.- 3.The Relevance of the Study.- 2: Some Historical and Theoretical Observations.- 1.Preliminary Remarks: The Rhetorical Nature of the Comparative Legal Argument.- 2. Some History.- 2.1. Early comparisons.- 2.2. Modern comparative law.- 2.3. Conclusions.- 3. To the Idea of Comparative Legal Reasoning.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. Traditional approach.- 3.3. Comparative law argument and comparative legal culture.- 3.4. Comparative law as comparative legal reasoning.- 3.5. Conclusions: the basic structure of practical comparative legal reasoning.- 4. General Conclusions.- 3: Comparative Law in European Legal Adjudication.- 1. Introduction.- 1.1. Preliminary remarks.- 1.2. Some "legal" bases for the use of comparative law in adjudicative reasoning.- 1.3. Some observations concerning the material of the study.- 1.4. The use of comparative law in some national legal orders.- 1.4.1. General remarks.- 1.4.2. Comparative reasoning in relation to international legal obligations.- European law and national legal orders.- Other types of international obligations.- 1.4.3. Some examples.- 1.4.4. Some general remarks on internal comparison, mixed courts, and private international law comparison.- 2. Comparative Law in the European Level Case Law.- 2.1. European Community law.- 2.1.1. General remarks.- 2.1.2. On interpretation in Community law.- 2.1.3. The legal basis for the use of comparative law.- 2.1.4. General remarks on the use of comparative law in the European Community legal order.- 2.1.5. Some general remarks on comparative influences in Community law.- 2.1.6. Comparative reasoning in the realm of international law in the European Court of Justice.- 2.1.7. The use of state legal systems in the absence of international obligations.- 2.1.8. Conclusions.- On the basis of the case law.- On the basis of the interviews.- 2.2. The European System of Human Rights.- 2.2.1. General remarks.- 2.2.2. Some examples of comparative reasoning.- Trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.- Corporal punishment in private schools.- Non-enforcement of access and custody rights.- Non-recognition of paternity.- Transsexuality.- Pre-trial detention.- 2.2.3. Comparative reasoning related to Article 10(1 and 2) ("freedom of expression" and "necessity in a democraticsociety") in of the European System of Human Rights (Cases Handyside, Engel, X v Germany, Arrowsmith, Glimmerveen, Liberal Party, Barthold, Glasenapp, Markt Intern, Groppera, Autronic,Mtiller, Castels v. Spain, Observer, Colman, Chorherr, Informationsverein Lentia, Casado Coca, Jersild, Oberschlick).- 2.2.4. Conclusions on the European System of Human rights.- On the basis of the case law.- On the basis of the interviews.- 2.3. Some general conclusions.- 2.3.1. General remarks.- 2.3.2. Some analysis.- 3. "Hard Cases" and the Comparative Limits of European Law.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. Value based comparative reasoning.- 3.2.1. Hard case I (The Otto Preminger Institute in the European system of human rights).- General remarks.- Context of justification.- Justification.- Some further analysis.- "Morality" and procedural polycentrism.- 3.2.2. Hard case II (Bachmann in the European Court of Justice).- Context of justification.- Justification.- Some analysis.- Conclusions.- 3.3. Traditional comparative reasoning.- 3.3.1 Hard case III (Hoechst in the European Court of Justice).- General remarks.- Context of justification.- The inquiry into the Member States'' systems.- The inquiry into the European System of Human rights.- Conclusions.- Justification.- Some analysis: a principle of individual protection vs. protection of business premises?.- 3.3.2. Hard case IV (Albany in the European Court of Justice).- General remarks.- The facts of the case.- The context of justification (the Advocate General''s opinion).- The Court''s reasoning.- Some other studies.- Some conclusions.- Collective agreements and compet