scholarly journals Die Transplantate vom deutschen Recht für die Reform des Privatrechts in Estland. Am Beispiel des Abstraktionsprinzips

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 123-131
Author(s):  
Villu Kõve

Estonia is one of the few countries where the abstraction principle (Abstraktionsprinzip) is recognised as the basis for title transfer in property law. Derived from the works of Savigny and from Germany’s strong land-register system, it is also among the basic principles of property law in Germany (the foundations of the BGB). In most countries, however, transfer of title is causal. The article describes how Estonia adopted and adapted German legal doctrine and thinking in this important field of law. This path was a long one, even though Estonian law has deep connections to German traditions. Before 1940, Estonia’s most important legal act was the Baltic Private Law Act, wherein the abstraction principle clearly was not recognised and the causal transfer of title formed the grounds in property law. In the Soviet era, though property law was given far less emphasis, the causal approach still served as its basis. When Estonia became independent, in the early 1990s, a new system of property law was urgently needed for purposes of land reform and for implementing the land-register system. German support for preparing the new Law of Property Act along the lines of German law was accepted, and the new law entered into force in 1993. Remarkably, at the beginning of this process it was not certain whether the abstraction principle would get implemented, but it became accepted through almost a decade of case law, and the new laws were later amended such that the principle was – unlike in German law – clearly formulated (in the General Part of the Civil Code). The abstraction principle has been an important part of Estonian property law and legal thinking ever since, firmly established both in legal theory and in case law. This process demonstrates well how a legal transplant from a given legal system can work in another.

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
SAA Cooper

AbstractThis paper examines discretionary decision making in a property law context: the statutory power to correct a mistaken entry on the land register. This discretionary power has importance as an occasion when the allocation of property occurs without fixed rules but is put into the control of the court without guidance on content or goals. The case-law is studied using legal empirical analysis. The judicial approach is described and findings are analysed. The paper relates the conclusions to doctrinal and policy debates in land registration and discusses how the judicial input advances understanding of the registration system as an integrated whole.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Böhle

The book examines the legal relationships in international loan syndicates based on the model contracts developed by the Loan Market Association (LMA). German law qualifies loan syndicates as partnerships. This qualification is questioned as it conforms neither to the expectations nor to the needs of the parties involved. With a constant comparative law approach (primarily England and France), the work brings together legal doctrine, legal theory and economics in order to develop practical solutions with regard to syndicate voting and duties of information in an LMA loan syndicate as well as the interpretation and judicial review of an LMA syndicate agreement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 343-359
Author(s):  
Slobodan Vukadinović

The aim of this paper is to explore the specifics of the Germ an approach in resolving legal issues that are raised regarding general terms and conditions. Applying legal-dogmatic, comparative and legal-historical methods, the paper examines the characteristics and basic directions of development of Germ an legal theory and legislation regarding general terms and conditions. The basics of understanding legal doctrine on the character and legal nature of general terms and conditions are laid out chronologically according to the time of creation and period of dominant influence. The paper highlights the extent to which the legal-theoretic and legal-dogmatic development of German law regarding general terms affected other German-speaking countries, primarily Austria and Switzerland. Legal theoretic development in German law ranged from the strong dominance of normative theory to its strong critics that led to the empowerment of contractual theory. Norm ative legal development is characterized by the principle 'from a special law to the general part of the civil code'. The review of the relevant BGB paragraphs shows that when amending paragraphs of the BGB, the legal concept, which was shaped through German theory and legislation in a coherent whole and in a special law on regulating the general terms and conditions law, was preserved. The provisions of that law were essentially taken into the German Civil Code in 2002 as part of the reform of German contract law. This law not only affected the development of other national legal systems, but also had some impact on the development of consumer law at the European Union level. Namely, some of its provisions were used as the basis for one of the most important directives concerning unfair contractual provisions. The paper also points to the current mechanisms for controlling general terms and conditions through the control of the validity of inclusion (incorporation), the black and grey list of contractual provisions and the general clause.


Author(s):  
J. E. Penner

This chapter discusses property law. It considers the idea that property had a “nominalist” ontology, and it was in danger of “disintegration” as a working legal category for that very reason. Nominalism about property has had a significant impact in U.S. case law. The concern here, however, is whether it is a helpful stance to take as a theorist of property. The chapter argues that it is not. There are indeed “high” level abstractions about property which one cannot plausibly do without if one is to understand property rights and property law doctrine. Moreover, the “bundle of rights” (BOR) challenge does not assist one in making sense of these abstractions. The chapter then looks at the conceptual failure of BOR and the New Private Law as it relates to property. BOR is generally regarded as being underpinned by what might be called the Hohfeld-Honoré synthesis. The synthesis rests upon a fairly serious mistake, which is that while the Hohfeldian examination of jural norms is analytic if it is anything, Honor’s elaboration of the incidents making up ownership is anything but—it is functional. This means that Honoré describes the situation of the owner not principally in terms of his Hohfeldian powers, duties, and rights vis-à-vis others, but in terms of the social or economic advantages that an owner has by virtue of his position, and the terms and limitations of those advantages.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-131
Author(s):  
Anthony Carty

Abstract Customary international law as a source of general law is given a primary place in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. However, it is historically a concept created by legal doctrine. The very idea of custom supposes legal persons are natural persons living in a dynamic, evolving community. This was the assumption of the historical school of law in the 19th century when the concept of custom was developed. Now the dominant notion of legal personality is the State as an impersonal corporation and international legal theory (Brierly and D’Amato) can see well that the death of the historical school of law has to mean the death of the concept of custom. What should replace it? Two steps need to be taken in sequence. Firstly, following the Swedish realist philosopher Haegerstrom, we have to ascertain the precise constellations of the conflictual attitudes the populations of States have to the patterns of normativity which they project onto international society. Secondly, we should follow the virtue ethics jurisprudence of Paul Ricoeur and others, who develop a theory of critical legal doctrinal judgement, along the classical lines of Aristotle and Confucius, to challenge and sort out the prejudices of peoples into some reasonable shape, whereby these can be encouraged to understand and respect one another. Then one will not have to endure so many silly interpretations of international law such as the one declaring that there are only rocks in the South China Sea and not islands. Such interpretations have nothing to do with the supposedly ordinary legal language analysis of a convention and the State practice surrounding it. They have to do entirely with a continued lack of respect by Western jurists for non-Western societies and nations.


Author(s):  
Anne C. Dailey

This chapter describes the contribution contemporary psychoanalysis has to make in three specific areas: legal theory, legal doctrine, and adjudication in the courtroom. Psychoanalysis improves the law’s theoretical foundations by modifying its foundational presumption of rationality. Psychoanalysis also helps to reform legal doctrine by identifying those particular subject matter areas, primarily family law and criminal law, where the law’s presumption of rationality leads to unjust legal rules. With domestic violence as its example, this chapter shows how psychoanalysis offers a body of practical knowledge that humanizes the law by bringing legal rules into line with actual, everyday lived experience. And finally, psychoanalysis reveals the deep tension between the law’s focus on individual moral responsibility for behavior and the law’s objective methods of proof in the courtroom. Psychoanalytic insights into the art of proving what really happened in a case can move law in the direction of a more empathic and forgiving model of judging. Overall, the psychoanalytic study of the law unveils the damaging consequences of the law’s rationalist assumptions about who we are as human beings, and offers an alternative, humanistic perspective in line with law’s foundational ideals of individual freedom and systemic justice.


10.12737/2243 ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
Ирина Мутай ◽  
Irina Mutay
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  

On the materials of project of reforming of law of obligation in France the author researches law positions of French courts and legal scholars on good fair and pre-contractual responsibility, explaines importance of legislative basis of proposals on pre-contractual responsibility and its development by case law, makes conclusions of necessity of taking into account of achievements of foreign legal doctrine during formation of Russian case law.


Author(s):  
Richard Calnan

This book explains how a creditor of an insolvent debtor can take priority over other creditors by claiming a proprietary interest in assets held by the debtor, and concentrates on the circumstances in which proprietary interests are created by operation of law or are implied from the arrangements between the parties. This is a subject of particular importance and difficulty in common law systems because of the changeable nature of equitable proprietary interests, and this book provides a clear and structured explanation of the current state of the law, with detailed reference to case law from England and Wales as well as Commonwealth jurisprudence, and suggests how it might be clarified and simplified by returning to first principles. The new edition considers a number of important developments which pertain to proprietary rights and insolvency. It evaluates the key decision of the Supreme Court in FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners. Although this has settled the question of whether constructive trusts extend to bribes, it has raised more general issues regarding the approach of the courts to the imposition of proprietary remedies, which the book explores. It also covers recent Privy Council and Court of Appeal decisions concerning constructive notice (Credit Agricole v Papadimitrou, Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp, and SFO v Lexi), as well as interesting issues concerning the new status of intangibles (Armstrong v Winnington) and the status of the anti-deprivation rule (Belmont Park v BNY). Proprietary Rights and Insolvency is a lucid and practical reference source on insolvency and property law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document