Search

The article discusses the role of precedents in the German judicial practice. In the European continental tradition, law enactment is within the legislature, whereas the role of the judiciary is to enforce law. In the continental system, precedent does not constitute a source of law sensu stricto , that is, a formal source of law. In order to guarantee the law utility and, ultimately, the legal certainty, courts interpret legal provisions in a unified manner. It is noteworthy that during the recent years the coherent interpretation of legal provisions and, by the same token, the commitment to law development, have increased. That means that a unified interpretation of law performed by courts may be considered a precedent. In this context, precedents and stare decisis have been replacing the logical interpretation of law in German courts.

В статье рассматриваются особенности немецких комментариев к законам: история возникновения и развития этого типа текстов, их функция в немецкой юридической системе, а также их типология. Кроме того, проводятся некоторые параллели с российскими комментариями. Немецкие комментарии являются важнейшим источником информации во всех сферах юридической деятельности и связующим звеном между юридической практикой и юриспруденцией. Они сопровождают немецких юристов со студенческой скамьи в течение всей профессиональной жизни. Комментарии в значительной степени влияют и на судопроизводство, и на законотворчество, и на развитие всей правовой системы. Они обладают в немецкой правовой системе настолько большим весом, что могут формировать так называемое «господствующее мнение» (herrschende Meinung) – мнение по определенному вопросу, которого придерживается большинство специалистов и которому, как правило, следуют судьи. Возникнув в начале 19 века в рамках научного дискурса, комментарии вскоре получили применение и в юридической практике. Богатые традиции составления комментариев обусловливают высочайшие требования к их структуре и содержанию современных немецких комментариев. В статье на примере нескольких комментариев к Гражданскому уложению Германии (BGB) рассматриваются отличительные особенности их основных типов. В частности, речь идет о наиболее подробных «больших» комментариях (Großkommentare), «кратких» комментариях (Kurzkommentare), для которых характерно предельно сжатое представление большого объема информации, «практических» комментариях (Handkommentare) для каждодневного пользования и «учебных» комментариях (Studienkommentare), которые составляются прежде всего для студентов юридических факультетов., The article considers peculiarities of German commentaries to the laws: their history and development of this type of texts, their function in the German legal system, and also their typology. In addition, some parallels with Russian commentaries are drawn. German commentaries are the most important source of information for lawyers in all areas of their activity. They create a connection between legal practice and jurisdiction. Commentaries accompany the lawyers beginning from the studies and during the entire professional life. Commentaries largely affect the legal process, the lawmaking, and the development of the legal system. They are of so much importance in the German legal system that they can form so-called "prevailing opinion" (herrschende Meinung) - an opinion on a particular issue, which most experts adhere to and which, as a rule, judges follow. Originating in the early 19 th century in the framework of scientific discourse, comments soon received application in the legal practice. The rich traditions of commenting make the highest demands on the structure and content of the commentaries. In the article, using the example of several commentaries for the German Civil Code (BGB), the distinctive features of their main types are considered. In particular, we are talking about the most detailed "large" commentaries (Großkommentare), "short" commentaries (Kurzkommentare), which are characterized by an extremely compressed representation of a large amount of information, "practical" commentaries (Handkommentare), for everyday use, and "educational" commentaries (Studienkommentare), which are made primarily for students of law.

It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedents in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require interpretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding.

After a description of the German legal system, the paper concentrates on the procedure of accreditation and recruitment of legal interpreters in the various German Länder. Special attention is paid to the situation in Bavaria, Hamburg, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westfalia.

The aim of this paper is to describe some similarities and differences encountered when comparing legal translation and comparative law as separate yet interrelated disciplines. To this end, their respective objectives and methods are broadly outlined. This is followed by a case study on translations of a specific legal text into English and German which have been produced by candidates sitting the Norwegian National Translator Accreditation Exam. In this paper, I intend to show that comparative law “in the traditional sense” (Friedman, 1990, p. 49) is much concerned with issues of translation and show that there are not only similarities but also differences.