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.

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.

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.