Reading, Amounting in Fact to a Theoretical Exegesis

Law and Forensic Science Volume 10 2015 (2) Law and Forensic Science Available at lawforensics.org Published in 2015. Copyright © 2015 belongs to the authors All rights for this volume reserved. No part of this volume may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISSN: 2080-9670 General Editors JAKUB J. SZCZERBOWSKI, Ph.D – Chief editor KRZYSZTOF KRASSOWSKI, Ph.D. – Vice-chief editor BENEDYKT PUCZKOWSKI, Ph.D. – Statistical editor Editorial Board CARMEN ESTEVAN, Professor – University of Valencia, Spain – Commercial Law ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ DE BUJÁN, Professor – Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain – Roman Law MARIUSZ JERZY GOLECKI, Professor – University of Lodz – Roman Law, Law and Economics EWA GRUZA, Professor – University of Warsaw, Poland – Forensic Science ALESSANDRO HIRATA, Professor – University of São Paulo, Brasil – Roman Law GABRIELE JUODKAITE-GRANSKIENE – Associated Professor, Vilnius University, Lithuania – Forensic Science EVA KLONOWSKI, Ph.D. – Iceland/Bosnia and Herzegovina – Forensic Anthropology LUZ MARTINEZ VELENCOSO, Professor – University of Valencia, Spain – Civil Law WITOLD PEPIŃSKI, Professor – Medical University of Bialystok, Poland – Forensic Genetics ALDO PETRUCCI, Professor – University of Pisa, Italy – Roman Law, Comparative Law BRONISŁAW SITEK, Professor – SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poland – Roman Law, Comparative Law JUAN ANTONIO TAMAYO, Professor – University of Valencia, Spain – Civil Law ARIANNA VEDASCHI, Professor – Bocconi University, Italy – Constitutional Law, Human Rights Table of Contents Materials from the 5th Annual International Conference on Comparative Law ........................ 6 Rafał Mańko, The Use of Extra-Legal Arguments in the Judicial Interpretation of European Contract Law: A Case Study on Aziz v Catalunyacaixa (CJEU, 14 March 2013, Case C- 415/11) ................................................................................................................................... 7 Renata Świrgoń-Skok, The impact of consumer law towards domestic law in the example of the timesharing contract ....................................................................................................... 27 Sławomir Kursa, Contractual Set-off in Roman Law and in Polish Law ............................ 36 Edyta Sokalska, Historical and Philosophical Background of the Code of Obligations of 1933 ...................................................................................................................................... 53 Franz-Rudolf Herber, Property, Expropriation and Socialisation According to the German Constitution in the Light of the European Economic and Philosophical History ................ 62 Maciej Rzewuski, Der Erbvertrag – Bemerkungen de lege lata und de lege ferenda (Contracts of inheritance - remarks on the law as it stands and the law as it should stand) .............................................................................................................................................. 77 Jakub M. Łukasiewicz, Marek Antas, The character of alimony benefit of increment ....... 92 Magdalena Rzewuska, Vertrag über die Bestellung einer Hypothek – Anmerkungen de lega lata und de lege ferenda (Mortgage contract – remarks de lege lata and de lege ferenda) 102 Małgorzata Lewandowska, Analysis of legislative lawlessness against comparative legal analysis ............................................................................................................................... 121 Luigi Lai, State Law and New Policies for Funding of Science ........................................ 132 Joseph P Garske, Anglophone Legal Culture in the Global Age: Fundamental Aspects ... 152 Articles ................................................................................................................................... 170 Sieńko J., Ossowski A., Piątek J., Kuś M, Zielińska G., Jałowińska K., Kotowski M., Kędzierska K., Sulikowski T., Ziętek Z., Tejchman K., Ostrowski M., Borowiak K., Parafiniuk M., Evaluation of microchimerism after transplanting sexually non-compliant kidneys on the basis of DNA tests performed with STR-PCR method from peripheral blood and urine ............................................................................................................................ 171 Anna Małkowska, Halina Matsumoto, Mirosław Szutowski, Magdalena Bamburowicz- Klimkowska, Marcin Łukasik, Determination of Ethyl Glucuronide in Human Urine – Method and Clinical Application ....................................................................................... 183 Henryk Malewski, International Scientific-Practical Conference “Criminalistics and Forensic Examination: Science, Studies, Practice” .......................................................... 197 Bronisław Sitek, Peculium - the beginnings of the concept of limited liability in civil law ............................................................................................................................................ 218 Law and Forensic Science, Vol. 10 5 Materials from the 5th Annual International Conference on Comparative Law Rafał Mańko, The Use of Extra-Legal Arguments in the Judicial Interpretation of European Contract Law: A Case Study on Aziz v Catalunyacaixa (CJEU, 14 March 2013, Case C-415/11) Abstract: The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is well known for its preference for extra- legal legal arguments over intra-legal ones. Indeed, in the CJEU’s interpretive practice, as a rule, linguistic arguments give way to systemic and teleological ones, and the Court’s prevalent approach favours policy arguments (i.e. extra-legal ones) over linguistic interpretation (i.e. a paradigmatic form of the deployment intra-legal arguments). The object of this study is a single decision of the CJEU, namely its judgment of 14 March 2013 in Case Aziz v Catalunyacaixa (Case C-415/11) in scope of proportion and significance of extra-legal and intra-legal arguments. Keywords: Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), legal argumentation, unfair terms. 1. Introduction The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is well known for its preference for extra-legal legal arguments over intra-legal ones. 1 Indeed, in the CJEU’s interpretive practice, as a rule, linguistic arguments give way to systemic and teleological ones,2 and the Court’s prevalent approach favours policy arguments (i.e. extra-legal ones) over linguistic interpretation (i.e. a paradigmatic form of the deployment intra-legal arguments).3 As such, it is praised by some 1 P. Marcisz, Koncepcja tworzenia prawa przez Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej [A Conception of the Creation of Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union] (Warszawa: LEX, 2015), p. 115ff. A. Kalisz, Wykładnia i stosowanie prawa wspólnotowego [Interpretation and Application of Community Law] (Warszawa: LEX, 2007), p. 178-179 argues that the methods of interpretation used by the CJEU are not new (in comparison to methods used by national courts), but what is new is their treatment as equal (instead of a hierarchy of methods in which linguistic methods take precedence). Whilst that is, in principle, true, one should point out the numerous CJEU judgments which did not contain any linguistic interpretation whatsoever. A case in point is CJEU judgment of 19.11.1991 in Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy, ECLI:EU:C:1991:428, where the principles of state liability vis-à-vis individuals for breaches of EU law are pronounced by the Court without any reference to a linguistic interpretaiton of any Treaty provisions. 2 T. Schilling, ‘Beyond Multilingualism: On Different Approaches to the Handling of Diverging Language Versions of a Community Law’, European Law Journal, 16.1 (2010): 47-66, p. 60; A. Kalisz, ‘Wykładnia prawa Unii Europejskiej’ [The Interpretation of European Union Law]. In A. Zawidzka-Łojek et al. (Eds.). Prawo Unii Europejskiej. Instytucje i porządek prawny. Prawo materialne [European Union Law: Institutions and the Legal Order; Substantive Law], ed. A. Zawidzka-Łojek et al (Warszawa: EuroPrawo, 2014), p. 201. 3 T. Stawecki, ‘O praktycznym zastosowaniu hermeneutyki w wykładni prawa’ [On the Practical Application of Hermeneutics to Legal Interpretation] [in:] Teoria i praktyka wykładni prawa [Theory and Practice of Legal Interpretation], ed. P. Winczorek (Warszawa: Liber, 2005), p. 108; A. Arnull, ‘The European Union and Its Court of Justice’, 2nd ed. (Oxford: OUC, 2006), p. 612; E. Paunio, ‘The Tower of Babel and the Interpretation of EU Law: Implications for Equality of Languages and Legal Certainty’ [in:] Private Law and the Many Cultures of Europe, ed. T. Wilhemsson (Alphen a/d Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2007), p. 392; E. Paunio & S. Lindroos- Hovinheimo, ‘Taking Language Seriously: An Analysis of Linguistic Reasoning and Its Implications in EU Law’, authors, who endorse this approach to legal interpretation,4 and criticised by others, who would prefer that the CJEU give precedence to strictly legal arguments, such as textualist, originalist and systemic ones, rather than teleological ones.5 The aim of this paper is not, however, to put forward a normative theory of interpretation for the CJEU or to subject its current practice to a critique. Rather, the paper aims at providing a closer analysis of how CJEU’s famously teleological reasoning actually

Load more