Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
INTERPRETING PRECEDENTS
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Edited by
D. NEIL MacCORMICK
Regius Professor o f Public Law and the Law o f Nature and Nations
University o f Edinburgh
and
ROBERT S. SUMMERS
McRoberts Research Professor o f Law Cornell University; Arthur L.
Goodhart Visiting Professor o f Legal Science, University o f Cambridge,
1991-92
O Routledge
Taylor & Francis Croup
LONDON AND NEW YORK
First published 1997 by Ashgate Publishing
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to in
fringe.
Typeset by Manton Typesetters, 5-7 Eastfield Road, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 7AJ, UK.
1 Introduction 1
D. Neil MacCormick, Edinburgh and Robert S. Summers,
Ithaca
2 Precedent in the Federal Republic of Germany 17
Robert Alexy, Kiel and Ralf Dreier, Gottingen
3 Precedent in Finland 65
Aulis Aamio, Tampere
4 Precedent in France 103
Michel Troper, Paris and Christophe Grzegorczyk, Paris
5 Precedent in Italy 141
Michele Taruffo, Pavia and Massimo La Torre, Florence
6 Precedent in Norway 189
Svein Eng, Oslo
7 Precedent in Poland 219
Lech Morawski, Toruh and Marek Zirk-Sadowski, Lodz
8 Precedent in Spain 259
Alfonso Ruiz Miguel, Madrid and Francisco J. Laporta,
Madrid
9 Precedent in Sweden 293
Gunnar Bergholtz, Lund and Aleksander Peczenik, Lund
10 Precedent in the United Kingdom 315
Zenon Bankowski, Edinburgh, D. Neil MacCormick,
Edinburgh and Geoffrey Marshall, Oxford
11 Precedent in the United States (New York State) 355
Robert S. Summers, Ithaca
12 Precedent in European Community Law 407
John J. Barcelo, Ithaca
13 Institutional Factors Influencing Precedents 437
Michele Taruffo, Pavia
14 The Binding Force of Precedent 461
Aleksander Peczenik, Lund
vi Contents
Index 56 7
Preface and
Acknowledgements
Since 1983, the research group has met once or more annually in
various places in Europe, Britain and the United States, including
several times at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at the Uni
versity of Bielefeld, in Germany. The first published effort of this
research group, which today calls itself T h e Bielefelder Kreis', con
sisted of a 567 page work called Interpreting Statutes - A Comparative
Study, which appeared in 1991. The present work on precedents is, in
its methodological orientation, a companion volume, and represents
the fruits of work over a five-year period.
The co-authors in the research group for the first volume appear in
the table of contents thereof, and the same is true of this second
volume. It will be seen that the continuity of membership is consid
erable, with the exception of new members from Poland, the addi
tion of Spain and Norway and their new members, the addition of a
new member from the United Kingdom, and the addition of a scholar
concerned with precedent in the European Union. The members met
on the precedent project in June 1992 at the Center for Interdisciplin
ary Studies at the University of Bielefeld, in May 1993 at the Cornell
Law School in Ithaca, New York, in June 1994 at Bologna and Flor
ence, in June 1995 at Bologna, and in August 1996 at Tampere, Fin
land.
The main modes of operation of the research group have been
sixfold from the beginning: (1) the formulation of agreed sets of
common concepts, terminology and questions to be answered for
each country (with the questions printed as appendices to the vol
umes), (2) the preparation by members from each country of a draft
essay for that country addressing the common questions, (3) exten
sive discussions at annual sessions of the common questions and
draft answers, with agreed revisions of both, (4) the assignment and
preparation of draft special essays on common topics based on (1),
(2) and (3), (5) extensive discussions of the draft special essays on the
common topics, and (6) thorough review and editing of the final
research effort by the same co-editors of both volumes, Professor
Neil MacCormick of the University of Edinburgh, and Professor
Robert Summers of Cornell Law School. For each of our annual
sessions, all of which lasted several days, a set of minutes was pre
pared recording the essential understandings and agreed further steps.
There have been some differences of emphasis in approach and meth
odology for the two projects, and these are identified and briefly
discussed in the introduction to this second volume.
The members of the research group wish to express their gratitude
to a number of persons for various important forms of assistance, or
other support including research advice, in the course of the work on
the present volume: Dean Russell Osgood of the Cornell Law School,
the Cornell Law School, and the Berger International Legal Studies
Preface and Acknowledgements ix
D.N.M. R.S.S.
October 1996
Series Preface
T omD. C a m pb el l
Series Editor
The Faculty of Law
The Australian National University
1 Introduction
Precedents are prior decisions that function as models for later decis
ions. Applying lessons of the past to solve problems of present and
future is a basic part of human practical reason. Accordingly, there is
no better way for a lawyer to get at the heart of a legal system than to
ask how it handles precedent. Precedent represents the law observ
ing itself, in two senses. First, when a lawyer - judge, practitioner or
legal scholar - contemplates a legal problem and inquires whether
there is any precedent about this problem, what will be produced for
scrutiny, should the inquiry succeed, is a record of a prior decision or
decisions from the same legal system that solved, well or ill, the
same or at least a similar problem. Thus one member of the system
observes another member's activity in one of the central tasks of a
legal system, the problem-solving, case-deciding task. Second, there
may be observance in the stronger sense of compliance; the later
decision maker does not merely take note of an earlier solution, but
may comply with it as a guiding model for solution of the present
problem, and may do so on the ground that present observance of
past rulings in like cases is the right or even the obligatory course to
follow.
The body of precedents available for consideration in any legal
setting represents, at its best, an accumulation of wisdom from the
past. There is not always, and there certainly does not have to be, an
absolutely perfect match between a new case for decision and any
single precedent. More probable is it that, for any new case, a set of
prior authorities provides a range of at least persuasively similar
patterns which may be either adopted or adapted to solve the present
problem. Precedent-based law, 'case law' as it is often called, is a
form of law with great antiquity. The establishment of reasonably
reliable tribunals for deciding disputed cases is much older than the
1
2 Interpreting Precedents
such areas of law. Under codification, less attention has been paid to
precedent than in common law systems, and scholars have had a
tendency to omit much discussion of precedent except perhaps in a
context of drawing comparisons with the common law systems, point
ing up the contrasts between the rational order of codified law and
the rather more sprawling organic growth of the common law from
precedent to precedent.
One strong message of the present book is that there is here a
contrast that has been too often too much exaggerated. There are
indeed vital and deep differences between the legal systems of codi
fied law and the legal systems of common law, and some of the
deeper differences do relate to the way in which precedents are
viewed and used. But the fact remains that also in the systems of
codified law precedent has played a great and, it must be said with
emphasis, a growing part. Thus the secular movement is towards
convergence, not increased differentiation of systems. Moreover, in
the system of European Community law that brings together coun
tries from both sides of the divide, the precedents of the European
Court of Justice have played a quite decisive part in developing and
determining the character of the legal system and indeed its distinct
existence as a new legal order independent of those of the member
states. The present book engages with a task that participants in our
group from civilian systems considered somewhat neglected in schol
arly discussion of these systems, namely the task of producing a
conceptually helpful and theoretically well-grounded account of the
place of precedent and of norms about argument from precedent in
these systems. Of particular interest from this point of view are the
second, fourth and fifth question topics, concerning respectively the
concept of 'binding precedent' including not only formal bindingness
but other degrees of normative force as well, the identification of the
authoritative element in precedent, and the grounds for and tech
niques of negating or avoiding or 'distinguishing' that authoritative
element in later cases in which, for some reason, departure from,
rather than following in line with, the authoritative element of a
governing precedent seems preferable.
Among the greatest of the difficulties in the enterprise was to seek
out ways of posing the questions that were sufficiently differentiated
to cover a body of distinctions well enough known in the common
law world without forcing the discussion of the other systems into a
mould that would distort the material to be examined. This, we
hope, explains what some readers will judge a certain prolixity (or
terminological infelicity) in the framing of the questions. Ideally, if
we take ordinary talk about precedents in the normal legal discourse
of the various systems to be the object of the present inquiry (the
'object language' that we study), what we needed to establish in the
Introduction 13
References
Bengoetxea, J. (1994), 'Legal System as a Regulative Ideal', ARSP-Beiheft, vol. 33, ed.
H-J. Koch and U. Neumann, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Hayek, F.A. (1975), Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol. 1, 'Rules and Order', London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kotz, H. and Zweigert, K. (1987), Introduction to Comparative Law (trans. J.A. Weir),
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stair, J. (Viscount) (1995), Institutions of the Laws of Scotland, 2nd edn, ed. D.M.
Walker, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Summers, R. 'Two Types of Substantive Reasons', Cornell Law Review, 63, p.707
(1978).
Weber, M. (1954), Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. M. Rheinstein,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Introduction
Bengoetxea, J. (1994), Legal System as a Regulative Ideal, ARSP-Beiheft, vol. 33, ed. H.-J.
Koch and U. Neumann , Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Hayek, F.A. (1975), Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol. 1, Rules and Order, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Ktz, H. and Zweigert, K. (1987), Introduction to Comparative Law (trans. J.A. Weir ), Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stair, J. (Viscount) (1995), Institutions of the Laws of Scotland, 2nd edn, ed. D.M. Walker ,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Summers, R. Two Types of Substantive Reasons, Cornell Law Review, 63, p.707 (1978).
Weber, M. (1954), Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society, ed. M. Rheinstein , Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Precedent in Finland
Aarnio, A. (1987), The Rational as Reasonable, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Aarnio, A. (1989), Laintulkinnan teoria, Helsinki.
Kekkonen, J. (1996), Kriisit, valta ja oikeus, Helsinki.
Kemppinen, J. (1990), Oikeus kulttuuri-ilmin, Helsinki.
Kemppinen, J. (1990), Tt kaikki asianomaiset noudattakoot, Helsinki.
Klami, H.T. (1983), Ihmisen snnt, Turku.
Klami, H.T. (1987), Oikeustaistelijat, Porvoo.
MacCormick, D.N. and R.S. Summers (eds) (1991), Interpreting Statutes A Comparative Study,
Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Makkonen, K. (1965), Zur Problematik der juridischen Entscheidung, Turku.
Miettinen, M. (1970), Prejudikaateista ja niiden merkityksest. Suomen Lakimiesliiton XXI
lakimiespivt, p. 250, Pytkirja.
Precedent in France
Bellet, T. Grandeur et servitude de la Cour de Cassation, Rev. internat. de dr. comp., p.293ff
(1980).
Bor, R. La cassation en matire civile, Sirey, 12 2129, p.249 (1980).
140 Breton, A. Larrt de la Cour de Cassation, Annales de lUniv. de Toulouse, vol. XXIII, p. 26
(1975).
Chapus, R. (1966), De la valeur juridique des principes genraux du droit et des autres rgles
jurisprudentielles, Paris: Dalloz, pp.99ff.
Cornu, G. (ed.) (1990), Vocabulaire Juridique, 2nd edn, Paris: PUF.
Favoreu, J. Actualit et lgitimite du contrle juridictionnel des lois en Europe Occidentale, RDP, 5,
pp.1147ff (1984).
Jobard-Bachellier, M.-N. and Bachellier, X. (1994), La Technique de cassation, 3rd edn, Paris:
Dalloz.
Marty, G. (1929), La distinction du fait et du droit, doctoral thesis, Toulouse.
Mendegris, R. and Vermelle, G. (1995), Le commentaire darrt en droit priv. Mthodes et
exemples, 5th edn, Paris: Dalloz.
Saluden, M. (1985) La jurisprudence, phnomne sociologique, Archives de Philosophie du Droit,
Paris: Sirey, p. 197.
Serverin, E. (1985), De la jurisprudence en droit priv, Thorie dune pratique, Lyons: Presses
Universitaires de Lyon, p.264.
Van de Kerchove, M. (1985) Jurisprudence et rationalit juridiques, Archives de Philosophie du
Droit, Paris: Sirey, p.236.
Zenati, F. (1991), La jurisprudence, Paris: Dalloz, p.102.
Precedent in Italy
Galgano, G. Linterpretazione del precedente giudiziario, Contratto e impresa, p.701 (1985).
Gorla, G. (1990), Precedente Giudiziale, in Enciclopedia Giuridica, vol. XXIII, Rome.
La dottrina del precedente nella giurisprudenza della Corte costituzionale (1971), Turin: UTET.
La giurisprudenza forense e dottrinale come fonte di diritto (1985), Milan: Giuffr.
La giurisprudenza per massime e il valore del precedente (1988), Padua: CEDAM.
188 Taruffo, M. (1994), Giurisprudenza, in Enciclopedia delle Scienae Sociali, vol. IV, Rome:
Istituto Della Enciclopedia Italiana, p.348.
Precedent in Norway
Andens, J. (1990), Statsforfatningen i Norge (Norwegian Constitutional Law), 7th edn, Oslo:
Tano.
Andens, J. (1994), Innfring i rettsstudiet (Introduction to the Study of Law), 4th edn, Oslo:
Grndahl Dreyer.
Augdahl, P. (1973), Rettskilder (Sources of Law), 3rd edn, Oslo: Aschehoug.
Boe, E. (1993), Innfring i juss: Juridisk tenkning og rettskildelre (Introduction to Law: Legal
Reasoning and Sources of Law), Oslo: Tano.
Brthen, B. (1978), Underinstansavgjrelser som rettskilde (Decisions from Courts other than the
Supreme Court as a Source of Law), Oslo: Institutt for privatrett, Jus og EDB no. 27.
Dolva, T. (1993), Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon og Norges Hyesterett (The
European Convention on Human Rights and the Norwegian Supreme Court), in E. Nerep and
W. Warnling-Nerep (eds), Homage Volume for J.W.F. Sundberg, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget,
pp.4556.
Eckhoff, T. (1945), Rettskraft (Res Judicata), Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum.
Eckhoff, T. (1993), Rettskildelre (The Doctrine of the Sources of Law), 3rd edn, Oslo: Tano.
Eckhoff, T. (1994), Forvaltningsrett (Administrative Law), 5th edn, Oslo: Tano.
Eng, S. The Doctrine of Precedent in English and Norwegian Law Some Common and Specific
Features, Scandinavian Studies in Law (1994).
Eng, S. (1996), Dissertation, University of Oslo. To be published as U/enighetsanalyse med
srlig sikte p jus og allmenn rettsteori (Analysis of dis/agreement with particular reference to law
and legal theory), by Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, in January 1998. Also to be translated into
English and published by Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Fleischer, C.A. (1968), Grunnlovens grenser (The Limits of the Constitution). Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Fleischer, C.A. (1981), Anvendelse og fortolkning av dommer (Application and Interpretation of
Judicial Decisions), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fleischer, C.A. (1995), Rettskilder (Sources of Law), Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Frihagen, A. (1966), Villfarelse og ugyldighet i forvaltningsretten (Mistake, Misrepresentation
and Invalidity in Administrative Law), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Gaarder, K. (1967), Domstolene og den allminnelige rettsutvikling (The Courts and the
Evolution of the Law), in G. Nissen , F. Hiorthy and K. Gaarder (eds) Den dmmende makt, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, pp.223290.
Hiorthy, F. (1967), Domstolene og forfatningsutviklingen (The Courts and the Evolution of
Constitutional Law), in G. Nissen , F. Hiorthy and K. Gaarder (eds) Den dmmende makt, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, pp.69222.
Knoph, R. (1948), Rettslige standarder (Legal Standards), Oslo: Grndahl & Sn.
Knoph, R. (1949), Oversikt over Norges rett (A Survey of Norwegian Law), 3rd edn edited by S.
Grette , Oslo: Nationaltrykkeriet.
Ldrup, P. (1966), Luftfart og ansvar (Aviation and Responsibility), Oslo: Johan Grundt Tanum.
NOU (Norwegian Public Reports) (1993:18), Lovgivmng om menneskerettigheter (Legislation
on Human Rights), Oslo: Statens Forvaltningstjeneste.
Ryssdal, R. The Relation between the Judiciary and the Legislative and Executive Branches of
the Government in Norway, North Dakota Law Review, p.527 (1981).
Sandene, E. (1989), Norges Hyesterett organisering og arbeidsordning (The Norwegian
Supreme Court Organization and Working Procedures), in E. Andersson et al. (eds), Homage
Volume for Curt Olsson, Helsingfors: Juristfrbundets Frlag, pp.297304.
217 Sandvik, T. (1966), Entreprenrrisikoen (The Risk of the Building Contractor), Oslo: Johan
Grundt Tanum.
Selmer, K. Norsk Retstidende i data-alderen (Norsk Retstidende in the Age of the Computer),
Norsk Retstidende, p. 14 (1986).
Smith, C. (1963), Studier i garantiretten (Studies in the Law of Guarantees and Bonds), Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Smith, C. (1964), Folkerettens stilling ved norske domstoler (International Law in Norwegian
Courts). Here cited from Statsliv og rettsteori, Oslo, 1978, pp.7189. (Originally published in
Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap, 1964, pp.356 ff.)
Smith, C. Domstolene og rettsutviklingen (The Courts and the Evolution of the Law), Lov og
Rett, p.292 (1975).
Smith, C. Hyesteretts stilling i samfunnet (The Supreme Court and Society), Juridisk Tidskrift,
p.781 (19923).
Stenberg-Nilsen, H. Norsk Retstidende 18361986, Norsk Retstidende, p.1 (1986).
Sundby, N. Kr. (1974), Om normer (On Norms), Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Vislie, A. Om prejudikater i Hyesteretts plenum (On Precedents from the Supreme Court in
Plenary Session), Tidsskrift for rettsvitenskap, p.284 (1957).
Wold, T. (1963), Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon og Norge (The European
Convention on Human Rights and Norway), in Homage Volume for Frede Castberg, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, pp. 353374.
Zimmer, F. (1986), Noe om prejudikater og andre hyesterettsdommer i skatteretten (Some
Remarks on Precedents and other Decisions in Tax Law from the Supreme Court), in A.
Bratholm et al. (eds), Homage Volume for Torstein Eckhoff, Oslo: Tano, pp.757773.
Precedent in Poland
Aarnio, A. (1988), Wegen Recht und Billigkeit, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Bodenheimer, E. (1962), Jurisprudence, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cardozo, B. (1949), The Nature of Judicial Process, New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Coing, H. (1969), Grundzge der Rechtsphilosophie, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
257 Davis, K. (1969), Discretionary Justice, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Dworkin, R. (1978), Taking Rights Seriously, London: Duckworth/Cambridge Ma: Harvard
University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1986a), Laws Empire, London: Fontana/Cambridge Ma: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1986b), A Matter of Principle, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dziaocha, K. (1992), Pastwo prawa w warunkach zmian zasadniczych systemu prawa, PiP, 1.
Dziaocha, K. (1993), Model ustrojowy TK de lege ferenda, PiP, 2.
Dziaocha, K. and Gromski, W. (1995), Niepozytywistyczna koncepcja pastwa prawa a TK, PiP,
3.
Frank, J. (1963), Courts on Trial, New York: Atheneum.
Frank, J. (1985), Law and Modern Mind, Birmingham Ala: Legal Classics Library.
Frank, S. (1971), Wytyczne SN w zakresie prawa karnego materialnego, PiP, 10.
Frankowski, S. (1969), Z problematyki tzw. Normotwrczej dzialalnoci sdw w prawie karnym, PiP,
89.
Fuller, L. (1993), Anatomia prawa, Lublin.
Garlicki, L. (1991), Przegld orzecznictwa TK za 1990, PS, 3.
Garlicki, L. (1994), Przegld orzecznictwa TK za 1993, PS, 3.
Gudowska, B. (1992), Przegld orzecznictwa NSA w sprawach podatkowych, PS, 1112.
Gudowski, B. (1993), Przegld orzecznictwa SN, PS, 4.
Habscheid, W. and Schlosser, P. (1987), Improvement of Civil Litigation, Justice and Efficiency,
8th World Conference on Procedural Law, Utrecht.
Kopaliski, W. (1985), Sownik wyrazw obcych, Warsaw.
Lang, W. , Wrblewski, J. and Zawadzki S. (1979), Teoria pastwa i prawa, Warsaw.
Larenz, K. (1979), Methodenlehre der Rechtswissenschaft, Berlin/Heidelberg.
Leszczyski, L. (1994, Precedent and the Judges Axiological Choices in Sawczuk, M. (ed.), Unity
of Civil Procedure and its National Divergencies, Lublin.
towski, J. (1990), Prawotwrstwo w czasach konfliktw, PiP, 5.
Lvy, H. (1971), On Justifications of Judicial Decisions, Logique et Analyse, 5354.
Maecki, J. (1993), Prawotwrcza rola orzecznictwa w sprawach podatkowych, RPEiS, 4.
Morawski, L. (1980), Domniemania faktyczne i reguly dowodu prima facie, Studia Prawnicze,
12.
Morawski, L. (1981), Domniemania a dowody prawnicze, Toru.
Morawski, L. (1988), Argumentacje, racjonalno prawa i postpowame dowodwe, Toru.
Morawski, L. (1993), Instrumentalizacja prawa, PiP, 6.
Morawski, L. (1994), Spr o pojecie pastwa prawnego, PiP, 3.
Morawski, L. (1995), The Rule of Law in the Welfare State, 17th World Congress IVR, vol. III,
Bologna.
Morawski, L. and Molter, A. (1993), Autopoiese und reflexives Recht, ARSP, Beiheft 52.
Murzynowski, A. and Zieliski, A. , (1992), Ustrj wymiaru sprawiedliwoci w przyszej konstytuqi,
PiP, 2.
Nowacki, J. (1974), Kryteria obowizywania norm prawnych a wytyczne SN, Studia Prawno-
Ekonomiczne, 3.
Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969), The New Rhetoric. Treatise on Argumentation,
Notre Dame, Notre Dame University Press.
Piotrowski, A. (1994), Precedens w systemie polskiego prawa ustawowego, RPEiS, 4.
Pomorski, S. (1974), Z zagadnie prawotwrczej funkcji sdw amerykaskich in Sokolewicz, W.
(ed.), Instytucje i doktryny prawno-polityczne USA, Ossolineum.
258 Pound, R. (1961), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law, New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Radwaski, Z. (1994), Rola prawnikw w tworzeniu prawa, PiP, 3.
Raz, J. (1979), The Authority of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Reynolds, B. (1971), A Formal Model for Judicial Discretion, Logique et Analyse, 53.
Sanetra, W. (1992), Wyjasnianie przepisw prawnych przez SN a zagadnienie powszechnej
wykadni prawa, PS, 4.
Skubiszewski, K. (1994), Przysza konstytucja Polski a miejsce prawa midzynarodowego w
krajowym porzadku prawnym, PiP, 3.
Stelmachowski, A. (1967), Prawotwrcza rola sdw, PiP, 45.
Stelmachowski, A. (1984), Wstp do teorii prawa cywilnego, Warsaw.
Strzembosz, A. (1995), Wadza sdownicza w przyszej Konstytucji w wietle stanowiska
Zgromadzema Oglnego sedziw SN, PS, 2.
Szyszkowski, W. (1969), SN w USA, Warsaw.
Trocker, N. (1978), Gegenwartsprobleme der italienischen Zivilrechtspflege, Zeitschrift fr
Zivilprozess.
Viehweg, T. (1974), Topik und Jurisprudenz, Munich: Manz Verlag.
Walker, R. (1988), The English Legal System, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Wasilewski, A. (1992), Problem aktualizacji porzdku prawnego, (w) Sadownictwo a obowiazujcy
system prawa, Warsaw.
Wodyka, S. (1971), Wizca wykadnia sdowa, Warsaw.
Wrblewski, J. (1967), Sdowe stosowanie prawa a prawotwrstwo, PiP, 6.
Wrblewski, J. (1971), Precedens i jednolito sdowego stosowania prawa, PiP, 10.
Wrblewski, J. (1972), Sdowe stosowanie prawa, Warsaw.
Wrblewski, J. (1973), Warto a decyzja sqdowa, Ossolineum.
Wrblewski, J. (1988), Sqdowe stosowanie prawa, Warsaw.
Wrblewski, J. (1989), System prawa, tworzenie wykadnia prawa w orzecznctwe TK, PiP, 2.
Zieliski, A. (1984), Podstawa prawna decyzji admimstracyjnej, PiP, 3.
Zieliski, A. (1985), Wspdzialanie NSA z TK, PiP, 5.
Ziembiski, Z. (1980), Problemy podstawowe prawoznawstwa, Warsaw.
Ziembiski, Z. (1993a), Tworzenie a stanowienie i stosowanie prawa, RPEiS, 4.
Ziembiski, Z. (1993b), O pojmowaniu pozytywizmu oraz prawa natury, Warsaw.
Zirk-Sadowski, M. (1980a), Tzw. Prawotwrcza decyzja sadowego stosowania prawa, Studia
Prawnicze, 12.
Zirk-Sadowski, M. (1980b), Precedens a tzw. decyzja prawotwrcza, PiP, 6.
Precedent in Spain
Diez Picazo y Ponce de Len, L. (1983), La Jurisprudencia in Instituto de Estudios Fiscales , El
Poder Judicial.
291 Garca de Enterra, E. (1981), La Constitucin como Norma y el Tribunal Constitucional,
Madrid: Ed. Civitas.
Gascon Abelln, M. (1993), La Tcnica del Precedente y la Argumentacin Racional, Madrid:
Tecnos.
Instituto de Estudios Fiscales (1979), La Constitucin Espaola y las Fuentes del Derecho, 3 vols.
Instituto de Estudois Fiscales (1993), El Poder Judicial, 3 vols.
Lafuente Surez, J.L. (1991), La Vinculacin al Precedente: inconvenientes para su aplicacin en
el mbito del sistema jurdico espaol, Madrid: Tapia.
Lpez Guerra, L. (1981), El Tribunal Constitucional y el principio stare decisis, El Tribunal
Constitucional, vol. II, Madrid: I.E.F.
Ministerio de Justicia (1991), El Principio de Igualdad en la Constitucin Espaola. XI Jornadas de
Estudio de la Direccin General del Servicio Jurdico del Estado, 2 vols, Madrid.
Nieto, A. (1990) El Precedente Judicial en la doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional, Estudios
Jurdicos en honor de Jos Gabaldn Lpez, Madrid: Trivium.
Ollero Tassara, A. (1989), Igualdad en la Aplicacin de la Ley y Precedente Judicial, Madrid:
C.E.C.
Otto, I. de (1987), Derecho Constitucional. Sistema de Fuentes. Madrid: Ed. Ariel.
Requejo Pajs , Juridicidad, Precedente y Jurisprudencia, Revista Espaola de Derecho
Constitucional, X, no. 29 (1990).
Roca Tras , Jurisprudencia, Precedente y Principio de Igualdad, Revista Jurdica de Catalua, 4
(1986).
Sala Snchez, P. (1993), La Unificacin de Doctrina, Tarea Fundamental del Tribunal Supremo,
Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial.
Xiol Rius , El Precedente judicial en nuestro Derecho: una creacin del Tribunal Constitucional,
Poder Judicial, 3 (1986).
Precedent in Sweden
Abrahamsson, A. Domstolsvsendets anpassning till EES och EG, Svensk Juristtidning,
pp.805811 (1993).
Bergholtz, G. (1987), Ratio et Auctoritas, Lund: Juridiska freningen.
Bergholtz, G. (1992), tal och kontradiktion. Marginalanteckningar till ngra yngre rttsfall, in
Festskrift till Per Olof Bolding, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget.
Bergholtz, G. (1993), Alternative Dispute Resolution in Sweden, in The International
Symposium On Civil Justice In The Era of Globalization, Tokyo, August 1992, Tokyo: Shinan
Publishing Company.
Bernitz et al. (1985), Finna rtt, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget.
Bratt, P. and Tiberg, H. (1989), Domare och lagmotiv, Svensk Juristtidning, pp. 707716.
Conradi, E. (1993), Skapande dmande, in Festskrift till Bertil Bengtsson, Stockholm: Nerenius &
Santrus frlag.
Eckhoff, T. (1987), Rettskildelaere, 2nd edn, Oslo: Tano.
Hellner, J. (1988), Rttsteori, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget.
Hellner, J. Strikt ansvar fr skada frn fjrvrmeanlggning, Juridisk Tidsskrift 1991/92, 3, (1992).
Hellner, J. (1994), Rttsteori, 2nd edn, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget.
Heuman, L. (1992), Hgsta domstolens prejudikatnedbrytande verksamhet, in Festskrift till Per
Olof Bolding, Stockholm: Juristfrlaget.
Lind, T. in Juridisk Tidskrift, pp. 301318, (1994).
Peczenik, A. (1974), Juridikens metodproblem, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Peczenik, A. et al. (1990), Juridisk argumentation, Stockholm: Norstedts.
Petrn, G. and Ragnemalm, H. (1980), Sveriges grundlagar, Stockholm: Liber Frlag.
Schmidt, F. (1955), Domaren som lagtolkare, in Festskrift till Herlitz, quoted from reprint in
Studiematerial i allmn rttslra, 1971, Stockholm: Juridiska freningen.
Strmholm, S. (1988), Rtt, rttskllor och rttstillmpning, 3rd edn, Stockholm: Norstedts.