The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance

Peter Stainer, Dominik König

Abstract


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.


Keywords


stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court

Full Text:

PDF

References


BGH, 10.10.1951 – II ZR 99/51 – Rejection of an arbitrator.

BVerfG, 18.12.1953 – 1 BvL 106/53 – Equality amongst husband and wife.

BVerfG, 11.08.1954 – 2 BvK 2/54 – 5%-Quota.

BVerfG, 19.07.1966 – 2 BvF 1/65 – Party Financing.

BVerfG, 14.02.1973 – 1 BvR 112/65 – Soraya.

BVerfG, 06.10.1987 – 1 BvR 1086/82, 1 BvR 1468/82, 1 BvR 1623/82 – Employee leasing.

BVerfG, 26.06.1991 – 1 BvR 779/85 – Labor Strikes.

BVerfG, 12.11.1997 – 1 BvR 479/92, 1 BvR 307/94 – Child as damage.

Dreier A., Precedent in the Federal Republic of Germany, [in:] Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, eds. N. MacCormick, R.S. Summers, A.L. Goodhart, London 1997.

Häcker B., Das englische Common Law – Eine Einführung, JuS 2014.

Hirte M., Hübsch R., Einführung in die ältere Strafrechtsgeschichte, JA 2009.

Karpen U., Rechtssetzungslehre, JuS 2016.

Lange H.F., Die Nichtanwendung von Urteilen des BFH durch die Finanzverwaltung – Nichtanwendungserlass und Nichtveröffentlichung, NJW 2002.

Lassahn P., Rechtsprechung und Parlamentsgesetz, Mohr Siebeck 2017.

Lundmark T., Umgang mit dem Präjudizienrecht, JuS 2000.

Meier P., Jocham F., Rechtsfortbildung – Methodischer Balanceakt zwischen Gewaltenteilung und materieller Gerechtigkeit, JuS 2016.

MüKo-ZPO/Gottwald, 2016, Sec. 322 § 39.

Olivet P., Rechtsverständnis im Wandel Rechtspositivismus und Überpositivität des Rechts heute, NJW 1989.

Spindler W., Der Nichtanwendungserlass im Steuerrecht, DStR 2007.

Wiedemann H., Richterliche Rechtsfortbildung, NJW 2014.

With H. de, In memoriam Bambergensis und Carolina, NJW 1982.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121
Data publikacji: 2018-05-02 07:55:26
Data złożenia artykułu: 2018-02-12 18:05:00

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.