[en] Abstract
How do judges engage with foreign case law? While prior research has identified some instances of courts willing to cite foreign judgments, details about the mode of engagement and the motivation of such cross-citations have often been left unexplored. This Article fills these gaps. It presents the results of the coding of a sample of 456 judgments with cross-citations between the private law supreme courts of twenty-eight European countries. Twenty-five variables were coded for each citation: for example, the length of the discussion of foreign case law, whether the court was interested in the result or the reasoning of foreign judgments, and whether the citations occurred within the context of EU law, international law and/or specific areas of the law. This Article presents and contextualizes (i.e., to “decode”) this quantitative information. Amongst others, we find that courts from common law countries more often cite older foreign case law and provide a greater depth of engagement with it than courts from civil law countries, that many of the courts are mainly interested in the result and not the reasoning of foreign judgments, that most cross-citations are driven by reasons of comparative law (and not, for example, EU law or international law), and that cross-citations due to EU law are particularly prevalent in IP law and conflict of laws. More generally, we observe a form of bifurcation of citations across many of the topics analyzed, suggesting a divide, not between common and civil law countries, but between courts from smaller and larger jurisdictions (e.g., with smaller jurisdictions using citations in more traditional areas of law, citing mainly one other court, citing older cases, and more often being interested in the reasoning of foreign judgments).
Disciplines :
Métadroit, droit romain, histoire du droit & droit comparé
Auteur, co-auteur :
De Witte, Folker
Krisztián, Anna
Kukavica, Jaka
POTOCKA-SIONEK, Nastazja ; University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Department of Law (DL)
Siems, Mathias
Yiatrou, Vasiliki
Co-auteurs externes :
yes
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
Decoding Judicial Cross-Citations: How Do European Judges Engage with Foreign Case Law?
See, e.g., Courts and Comparative Law (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2015); Elaine Mak, JudicialDecision-Making in a Globalised World (2013); MichalBobek, Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts (2013).
See, e.g., Courts and Comparative Law (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2015); Elaine Mak, JudicialDecision-Making in a Globalised World (2013); MichalBobek, Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts (2013).
See, e.g., Courts and Comparative Law (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2015); Elaine Mak, JudicialDecision-Making in a Globalised World (2013); MichalBobek, Comparative Reasoning in European Supreme Courts (2013).
E.g., Kwai Hang Ng & Brynna Jacobson, How Global Is the Common Law? A Comparative Study of Asian Common Law Systems: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore, 12 Asian J. Comp. L. 209 (2017); Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Citations to Foreign Courts: Illegitimate and Superfluous, or Unavoidable? Evidence from Europe, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 35 (2014); David Zaring, The Use of Foreign Decisions by Federal Courts: An Empirical Analysis, 3 J. EmpiricalLegalStud. 297 (2006). See also Jens Frankenreiter, Studying Judicial Citations and Citation Data, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative JudicialBehaviour (Lee Epstein, Gunnar Grendstad, Urška Šadl & Keren Weinshall eds., forthcoming 2024).
E.g., Kwai Hang Ng & Brynna Jacobson, How Global Is the Common Law? A Comparative Study of Asian Common Law Systems: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore, 12 Asian J. Comp. L. 209 (2017); Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Citations to Foreign Courts: Illegitimate and Superfluous, or Unavoidable? Evidence from Europe, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 35 (2014); David Zaring, The Use of Foreign Decisions by Federal Courts: An Empirical Analysis, 3 J. EmpiricalLegalStud. 297 (2006). See also Jens Frankenreiter, Studying Judicial Citations and Citation Data, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative JudicialBehaviour (Lee Epstein, Gunnar Grendstad, Urška Šadl & Keren Weinshall eds., forthcoming 2024).
E.g., Kwai Hang Ng & Brynna Jacobson, How Global Is the Common Law? A Comparative Study of Asian Common Law Systems: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore, 12 Asian J. Comp. L. 209 (2017); Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Citations to Foreign Courts: Illegitimate and Superfluous, or Unavoidable? Evidence from Europe, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 35 (2014); David Zaring, The Use of Foreign Decisions by Federal Courts: An Empirical Analysis, 3 J. EmpiricalLegalStud. 297 (2006). See also Jens Frankenreiter, Studying Judicial Citations and Citation Data, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative JudicialBehaviour (Lee Epstein, Gunnar Grendstad, Urška Šadl & Keren Weinshall eds., forthcoming 2024).
E.g., Kwai Hang Ng & Brynna Jacobson, How Global Is the Common Law? A Comparative Study of Asian Common Law Systems: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore, 12 Asian J. Comp. L. 209 (2017); Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Citations to Foreign Courts: Illegitimate and Superfluous, or Unavoidable? Evidence from Europe, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 35 (2014); David Zaring, The Use of Foreign Decisions by Federal Courts: An Empirical Analysis, 3 J. EmpiricalLegalStud. 297 (2006). See also Jens Frankenreiter, Studying Judicial Citations and Citation Data, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative JudicialBehaviour (Lee Epstein, Gunnar Grendstad, Urška Šadl & Keren Weinshall eds., forthcoming 2024).
E.g., Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Language, Legal Origins, and Culture Before the Courts: Cross-Citations Between Supreme Courts in Europe, 21 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 215 (2013). This topic has also been explored with other methods, such as surveys and interviews: see, e.g., Brian Flanagan & Sinéad Ahern, Judicial Decision- Making and Transnational Law: A Survey of Common Law Supreme Court Judges, 60 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 1 (2011); Elaine Mak, Why Do Dutch and UK Judges Cite Foreign Law?, 70 Cambridge L.J. 420 (2011).
E.g., Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Language, Legal Origins, and Culture Before the Courts: Cross-Citations Between Supreme Courts in Europe, 21 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 215 (2013). This topic has also been explored with other methods, such as surveys and interviews: see, e.g., Brian Flanagan & Sinéad Ahern, Judicial Decision- Making and Transnational Law: A Survey of Common Law Supreme Court Judges, 60 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 1 (2011); Elaine Mak, Why Do Dutch and UK Judges Cite Foreign Law?, 70 Cambridge L.J. 420 (2011).
E.g., Martin Gelter & Mathias Siems, Language, Legal Origins, and Culture Before the Courts: Cross-Citations Between Supreme Courts in Europe, 21 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 215 (2013). This topic has also been explored with other methods, such as surveys and interviews: see, e.g., Brian Flanagan & Sinéad Ahern, Judicial Decision- Making and Transnational Law: A Survey of Common Law Supreme Court Judges, 60 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 1 (2011); Elaine Mak, Why Do Dutch and UK Judges Cite Foreign Law?, 70 Cambridge L.J. 420 (2011).
Note that this study still includes the United Kingdom as it analyzes the situation prior to its departure from the EU in January 2020, and that other types of citations are not included in this project (e.g., citations by and to courts of third countries, citations to domestic courts, citations to foreign legal literature).
See discussion of the literature infra Part III.B.
E.g., JudicialCosmopolitanism: The Use of Foreign Law in Contemporary ConstitutionalSystems (Giuseppe Franco Ferrari ed., 2019); JudicialDialogue and Human Rights (Amrei Müller ed., 2017); The Use of Foreign Precedents by ConstitutionalJudges (Tania Groppi & Marie-Claire Ponthoreau eds., 2013).
E.g., JudicialCosmopolitanism: The Use of Foreign Law in Contemporary ConstitutionalSystems (Giuseppe Franco Ferrari ed., 2019); JudicialDialogue and Human Rights (Amrei Müller ed., 2017); The Use of Foreign Precedents by ConstitutionalJudges (Tania Groppi & Marie-Claire Ponthoreau eds., 2013).
E.g., JudicialCosmopolitanism: The Use of Foreign Law in Contemporary ConstitutionalSystems (Giuseppe Franco Ferrari ed., 2019); JudicialDialogue and Human Rights (Amrei Müller ed., 2017); The Use of Foreign Precedents by ConstitutionalJudges (Tania Groppi & Marie-Claire Ponthoreau eds., 2013).
Sabrina D'Andrea, Nikita Divissenko, Maria Fanou, Anna Krisztián, Jaka Kukavica, Nastazja Potocka-Sionek & Mathias Siems, Asymmetric Cross-Citations in Private Law: An Empirical Study of 28 Supreme Courts in the EU, 28 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 498 (2021) (based on these data, this article then grouped countries into five categories: "true followers," "true comparatists," "reluctant followers," "reluctant comparatists," and "isolates"). See also Mathias Siems, A Network Analysis of Judicial Cross-Citations in Europe, 48 Law & Soc. Inquiry 881 (2023) (providing an econometric evaluation of this network of cross-citations).
Sabrina D'Andrea, Nikita Divissenko, Maria Fanou, Anna Krisztián, Jaka Kukavica, Nastazja Potocka-Sionek & Mathias Siems, Asymmetric Cross-Citations in Private Law: An Empirical Study of 28 Supreme Courts in the EU, 28 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 498 (2021) (based on these data, this article then grouped countries into five categories: "true followers," "true comparatists," "reluctant followers," "reluctant comparatists," and "isolates"). See also Mathias Siems, A Network Analysis of Judicial Cross-Citations in Europe, 48 Law & Soc. Inquiry 881 (2023) (providing an econometric evaluation of this network of cross-citations).
The text of the codebook can be found in Table 1 of the online Appendix to this Article. Its questions were drafted so that they would not raise problems of intercoder reliability; yet, we also checked subsequently whether results may have been due to differences in understanding across coders of some of the items of the codebook.
Namely, courts are said to have a more important role in common law than in civil law countries, due, among others, to the doctrine of precedents (stare decisis). See, e.g., Interpreting Precedents: AComparative Study (Neil MacCormick & Robert S. Summers eds., 1997); Interpreting Statutes: AComparative Study (Neil MacCormick & Robert S. Summers eds., 1991).
Namely, courts are said to have a more important role in common law than in civil law countries, due, among others, to the doctrine of precedents (stare decisis). See, e.g., Interpreting Precedents: AComparative Study (Neil MacCormick & Robert S. Summers eds., 1997); Interpreting Statutes: AComparative Study (Neil MacCormick & Robert S. Summers eds., 1991).
Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, and Sweden do not have separate constitutional courts but separate supreme courts for administrative law; Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Spain have separate constitutional courts but no separate supreme courts for administrative law; the other countries have both.
In Luxembourg too, the court has Advocates Generals; yet, we were unable to gain access to their opinions.
Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 45-46. See also Mak, supra note 3, at 445 (stating that judges themselves have openly referred to opinions of Advocates Generals as giving more of an "insight into the background for the Court's reasoning").
Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 45-46. See also Mak, supra note 3, at 445 (stating that judges themselves have openly referred to opinions of Advocates Generals as giving more of an "insight into the background for the Court's reasoning").
For an overview, see Anne Sanders, Judicial Assistants in Europe: A Comparative Analysis, 11 Int'lJ. Ct. Admin. 12 (2020).
For comparative data on courts in Europe see also Councilof Europe, www. coe.int/en/web/cepej.
For the first two points: number of supreme court judges: twelve for the United Kingdom and around 300 for Italy; decisions from 2000 to 2018: around 600 for the United Kingdom and more than 400, 000 for Italy; for the third point, see the online Appendix, Table 22. For a similar observation, comparing France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (as well as Canada and the United States), see Mak, supra note 1, at 36-62.
For details see Table 22 of the online Appendix to this Article.
Mathias Siems, Comparative Law 63-64 (3d ed. 2022).
Heikki E.S. Mattila, Comparative LegalLinguistics 111 (2d ed. 2013).
For the traditional approach, see, e.g., Mitchelde S.-O.-l'E. Lasser, JudicialDeliberations: AComparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy (2009). Since 2019 more extensive reasoning is required in some cases, for example, where there is a reversal of prior case law or the need of a proportionality test, see Mode de rédaction et motivation des décisions de la Cour de cassation, Cour de Cassation, www.courdecassation.fr/acces-rapide-judilibre/comprendre-une-decision-de-la-cour/ le-nouveau-mode-de-redaction-des.
Rafał Mańko, Survival of the Socialist Legal Tradition? A Polish Perspective, 4.2 Comp. L. Rev. (2013), www.comparativelawreview.unipg.it/index.php/comparative/ article/download/14/11.
See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 Ct. 2472, 2495 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Cf. Sir Basil Markesinis & Jörg Fedtke, The Judge as Comparatist, 70 Tul. L. Rev. 11, 26-30 (2005) (discussing rules from Italy and France, which however only concern restrictions to cite academic literature).
Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 69-70, 80-82.
See Practice Directions [2001] 2 All ER 510 (stating: "Cases decided in other jurisdictions can, if properly used, be a valuable source of law in this jurisdiction.").
Carlo Guarnieri & Patrizia Pederzoli, The Power of Judges: AComparative Study of Courts and Democracy 18-44 (2001); John Bell, Judiciaries Within Europe: AComparative Review 13-24 (2006).
Carlo Guarnieri & Patrizia Pederzoli, The Power of Judges: AComparative Study of Courts and Democracy 18-44 (2001); John Bell, Judiciaries Within Europe: AComparative Review 13-24 (2006).
Lee Epstein, Urška Šadl & Keren Weinshall, The Role of Comparative Law in the Analysis of Judicial Behavior, 69 Am. J. Comp. L. 689 (2021).
The list of coded judgments is reported in the online Appendix, Table 23.
See further infra Parts II.A and III.C.
See, e.g., the analysis infra Part II.
See, e.g., the analysis infra Parts II.B.3, III.B.2.
Specifically, out of the seven countries that the previous article, D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, identified as "true followers" or "true comparatists" (Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, United Kingdom), only one of them is below average (Malta).
See Korkein oikeus, Decisions KKO:2005:82 (July 4, 2005) and KKO:2014:93 (Dec. 12, 2014) (Fin.).
Some supreme courts anonymized their judgments before publishing them; therefore, in such cases it was impossible to establish with certainty whether any of the parties were foreign (even if in some instances the text of the judgment may provide some clues as to the origin of the parties).
In our sample, this concerns Malta and Cyprus: for their mixed nature, see references in D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, at 508, 512.
Considering the cited courts (see also Table 6), it can be noted that for Cyprus and Ireland this mainly concerns another common law court (the U.K. one), while for the United Kingdom it mainly concerns civil law courts. For Malta, the data are split between citations to the U.K. and Italian Courts, and the mean year is lower for citations to the former than the latter court (1945 and 1987, respectively).
See supra Part I.A. See also D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, at 507-10 (calling them "true followers").
The precise data on the years of the citing decisions can be found in the online Appendix, Table 2.
Thus, this provides support for the statement in the comparative legal literature that the use of comparative law in legal reasoning has become more prevalent than ever. See, e.g., Lord Bingham, There Is a World Elsewhere: The Changing Perspectives of English Law, 41 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 513 (1992); Lord Justice Mance, Foreign and Comparative Law in the Courts Teaching and Practicing Law in the 21st Century: A Symposium Honoring the Distinguished Career of Professor Hans Baade, 36 Tex. Int'lL.J. 415 (2001); Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve, "There Is a World Elsewhere": Lord Bingham and Comparative Law, in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: ALiber Amicorum 840 (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2009).
Thus, this provides support for the statement in the comparative legal literature that the use of comparative law in legal reasoning has become more prevalent than ever. See, e.g., Lord Bingham, There Is a World Elsewhere: The Changing Perspectives of English Law, 41 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 513 (1992); Lord Justice Mance, Foreign and Comparative Law in the Courts Teaching and Practicing Law in the 21st Century: A Symposium Honoring the Distinguished Career of Professor Hans Baade, 36 Tex. Int'lL.J. 415 (2001); Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve, "There Is a World Elsewhere": Lord Bingham and Comparative Law, in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: ALiber Amicorum 840 (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2009).
Thus, this provides support for the statement in the comparative legal literature that the use of comparative law in legal reasoning has become more prevalent than ever. See, e.g., Lord Bingham, There Is a World Elsewhere: The Changing Perspectives of English Law, 41 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 513 (1992); Lord Justice Mance, Foreign and Comparative Law in the Courts Teaching and Practicing Law in the 21st Century: A Symposium Honoring the Distinguished Career of Professor Hans Baade, 36 Tex. Int'lL.J. 415 (2001); Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve, "There Is a World Elsewhere": Lord Bingham and Comparative Law, in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: ALiber Amicorum 840 (Mads Andenas & Duncan Fairgrieve eds., 2009).
For further discussion on transparency and access of supreme court decisions, see D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, at 526-33.
See supra notes 11-27.
Thus, these questions show how likely it is that the court actually consulted the foreign judgments-and not only secondary materials, such as academic writings. On the latter topic, see, e.g., Giureconsulti e giudici: L'influsso dei professori sulle sentenze (Silvia Bagni et al. eds., 2016).
For the use of the reduced sample for some of the analysis, see supra Part I. See also online Appendix, Tables 3-8 (containing the absolute data on all twenty-eight countries and the countries with twenty-five coded judgments).
Given that 98.5% divided by 68.12% is 1.45. Note that the average percentage has been determined by the average of the countries of the reduced sample.
Gelter & Siems, supra note 3, at 267.
HR 30 maart 2012, ECLI:NL:PHR:2012:BV2839, para. 3.17, n.42 (Neth.).
In some cases, we found a textual length of zero, which reflects that the court solely cited the case without mentioning anything of its content, for instance as a matter of comparison.
See also Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 80 (noting the tendency of the German Supreme Court to employ mere "ornamental cross-citations" without any detailed analysis of the foreign judgment).
This pattern could be explained, at least in part, by the fact that these jurisdictions focus primarily on the concept of "unified and settled case law," rather than on precedent in the common law sense of the word. In this discursive setting, quotations of concrete decisions would play a less significant role. For the influence of these dynamics on case citations in Slovenia, for instance, see Tilen Štajnpihler Božič, Precedent Ideology and Judicial Legitimacy in Slovenia: An Outline, 27 Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 143 (2018).
In the codebook which underpinned the data collection (see online Appendix, Table 1), we also included the option "uncertain"; yet, as it is difficult to distinguish between "uncertain" and "no," the following presents the results in two groups, namely, "yes" and "no" (including "uncertain"). The precise data underlying the charts of this section can be found in the online Appendix, Tables 9 to 12.
See, e.g., Biago Ando, The Role of Judges in the Development of Mixed Legal Systems: The Case of Malta, 4 J. Civ. L. Stud. 237 (2011).
D'Andrea et al., supra note 7.
The opinions of the French and Dutch Advocate Generals were included in the data on cross-citations. See supra Table 1.
See D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, at 512-13.
See id. (calling such courts "true followers," specifically referring to Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, and Luxembourg). In this Article, Table 6 presents data on how far courts mainly cite one other court.
Italy, Slovenia, and Germany. See supra Part II.A, as well as D'Andrea et al., supra note 7, at 517-22.
See, e.g., Nejvyšší soud (NS) [Decision of the Supreme Court of Dec. 8, 2015], 29 Cdo 1801/2013 (Czech); NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of May 6, 2014], 32 Cdo 1730/2013; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of July 28, 2014], 32 Cdo 325/2014; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of Oct. 29, 2013], 23 Cdo 2662.
See, e.g., Nejvyšší soud (NS) [Decision of the Supreme Court of Dec. 8, 2015], 29 Cdo 1801/2013 (Czech); NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of May 6, 2014], 32 Cdo 1730/2013; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of July 28, 2014], 32 Cdo 325/2014; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of Oct. 29, 2013], 23 Cdo 2662.
See, e.g., Nejvyšší soud (NS) [Decision of the Supreme Court of Dec. 8, 2015], 29 Cdo 1801/2013 (Czech); NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of May 6, 2014], 32 Cdo 1730/2013; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of July 28, 2014], 32 Cdo 325/2014; NS [Decision of the Supreme Court of Oct. 29, 2013], 23 Cdo 2662.
Explainable due to a unique set of cases, namely, that many of the Slovenian citations to the Croatian court concerned cases about Slovenian citizens being involved in a car accident in Croatia with the consequences that non-pecuniary damages needed to be calculated based on the criteria developed by the Croatian court.
In the codebook which underpinned the data collection (online Appendix, Table 1), we also included the option "N/A"; yet, as it is difficult to distinguish between "uncertain" and "N/A," we have merged these two categories into one general group, namely "uncertain."
The latter may also be called "negative fertilization." See Margit Cohn, Legal Transplant Chronicles: The Evolution of Unreasonableness and Proportionality Review of the Administration in the United Kingdom, 28 Am. J. Comp. L. 583, 591-92 (2010).
In the case of nine countries-the Czech Republic, Italy, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Portugal, Belgium, and France-no such case was noted.
Croatia, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Spain, Hungary, Estonia, and Lithuania.
Belgium, Italy, France, and Slovenia.
Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 47 (as applied to more limited data).
Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Aff., Gov't of Pak. [2010] UKSC 46.
Id. [1].
Vrhovno sodišče [VSRS], Decision No. II Ips 160/2013, ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:II. IPS.160.2013, para. 9 (Apr. 23, 2015) (Slovn.).
Cass., sez. civile I, 1 dicembre 2011, n. 25732 (It.).
S.T.S., June 21, 2011 (5310/2003; ECLI: ES:TS:2003:5310) (Spain). Note that this decision was also coded as falling under "jurisdiction."
With a notable exception of ten citations made by the Irish Supreme Court to cases by the U.K. House of Lords dating back to before Irish independence when Ireland still formed part of the United Kingdom and the House of Lords was still the court of last resort for Ireland.
See, e.g., Ferrari, supra note 6. For a broader discussion of these general themes, see Andenas & Fairgrieve, supra note 1.
See, e.g., Ferrari, supra note 6. For a broader discussion of these general themes, see Andenas & Fairgrieve, supra note 1.
Vrhovno sodišče [VSRS], Decision No. II Ips 876/2008 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2012:II. IPS.876.2008, para. 8 (Slovn.) (translated by authors).
D'Andrea et al., supra note 7.
These were the supreme courts of Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Malta, Romania, and Slovakia.
For an overview of these themes, see NationalCourts and EULaw: New Issues, Theories and Methods (Bruno de Witte et. al. eds., 2016); Constitutionalising the EUJudicialSystem: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas & Nils Wahl eds., 2012). See also Tommaso Pavone & R. Daniel Kelemen, The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and National Courts Revisited, 25 Eur. L.J. 352 (2019); Sacha Prechal, National Courts in EU Judicial Structures, 25 Y.B. Eur. L. 429 (2006).
For an overview of these themes, see NationalCourts and EULaw: New Issues, Theories and Methods (Bruno de Witte et. al. eds., 2016); Constitutionalising the EUJudicialSystem: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas & Nils Wahl eds., 2012). See also Tommaso Pavone & R. Daniel Kelemen, The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and National Courts Revisited, 25 Eur. L.J. 352 (2019); Sacha Prechal, National Courts in EU Judicial Structures, 25 Y.B. Eur. L. 429 (2006).
For an overview of these themes, see NationalCourts and EULaw: New Issues, Theories and Methods (Bruno de Witte et. al. eds., 2016); Constitutionalising the EUJudicialSystem: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas & Nils Wahl eds., 2012). See also Tommaso Pavone & R. Daniel Kelemen, The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and National Courts Revisited, 25 Eur. L.J. 352 (2019); Sacha Prechal, National Courts in EU Judicial Structures, 25 Y.B. Eur. L. 429 (2006).
For an overview of these themes, see NationalCourts and EULaw: New Issues, Theories and Methods (Bruno de Witte et. al. eds., 2016); Constitutionalising the EUJudicialSystem: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh (Pascal Cardonnel, Allan Rosas & Nils Wahl eds., 2012). See also Tommaso Pavone & R. Daniel Kelemen, The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and National Courts Revisited, 25 Eur. L.J. 352 (2019); Sacha Prechal, National Courts in EU Judicial Structures, 25 Y.B. Eur. L. 429 (2006).
Filiz Kahraman, Nikhil Kalyanpur & Abraham Newman, Domestic Courts, Transnational Law, and International Order, 26 (S1) Eur. J. Int'lRelations 184, 194 (2020).
Andrew Green, PoliticalIntegration by Jurisprudence: The Work of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in European PoliticalIntegration (1969).
Anne-Marie Slaughter et al., The European Court and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context (1998); Lisa Conant, Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration, 45 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 45 (2007); Rob van Gestel & Jurgen de Poorter, Supreme Administrative Courts' Preliminary Questions to the CJEU: Start of a Dialogue or Talking to Deaf Ears, 6 Cambridge J. Int'l& Comp. L. 122 (2017); Jasper Krommendijk, It Takes Two to Tango: The Preliminary Reference Dance Between the Court of Justice of the European Union and National Courts, 5 Eur. Papers 745 (2020).
Anne-Marie Slaughter et al., The European Court and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context (1998); Lisa Conant, Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration, 45 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 45 (2007); Rob van Gestel & Jurgen de Poorter, Supreme Administrative Courts' Preliminary Questions to the CJEU: Start of a Dialogue or Talking to Deaf Ears, 6 Cambridge J. Int'l& Comp. L. 122 (2017); Jasper Krommendijk, It Takes Two to Tango: The Preliminary Reference Dance Between the Court of Justice of the European Union and National Courts, 5 Eur. Papers 745 (2020).
Anne-Marie Slaughter et al., The European Court and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context (1998); Lisa Conant, Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration, 45 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 45 (2007); Rob van Gestel & Jurgen de Poorter, Supreme Administrative Courts' Preliminary Questions to the CJEU: Start of a Dialogue or Talking to Deaf Ears, 6 Cambridge J. Int'l& Comp. L. 122 (2017); Jasper Krommendijk, It Takes Two to Tango: The Preliminary Reference Dance Between the Court of Justice of the European Union and National Courts, 5 Eur. Papers 745 (2020).
Anne-Marie Slaughter et al., The European Court and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context (1998); Lisa Conant, Review Article: The Politics of Legal Integration, 45 J. Common Mkt. Stud. 45 (2007); Rob van Gestel & Jurgen de Poorter, Supreme Administrative Courts' Preliminary Questions to the CJEU: Start of a Dialogue or Talking to Deaf Ears, 6 Cambridge J. Int'l& Comp. L. 122 (2017); Jasper Krommendijk, It Takes Two to Tango: The Preliminary Reference Dance Between the Court of Justice of the European Union and National Courts, 5 Eur. Papers 745 (2020).
J.H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2403 (1991); Karen Alter, The European Union's Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash?, 54 Int'lOrg. 489 (2000).
J.H.H. Weiler, The Transformation of Europe, 100 Yale L.J. 2403 (1991); Karen Alter, The European Union's Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spillover or Backlash?, 54 Int'lOrg. 489 (2000).
Monika Glavina, To Refer or Not to Refer, That Is the (Preliminary) Question: Exploring Factors Which Influence the Participation of National Judges in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure, 16 Croat. Y.B. Eur. L. & Pol'y 25 (2020).
Barry Rodger, Imelda Maher & Rónán Riordan, A Decade of EU Law in the Courts of Scotland and Ireland: National Legal Systems Compared, 41 LegalStud. 311 (2021); Lisa Conant, Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union (2002); Karen Alter, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an InternationalRule of Law in Europe 48 (2001).
Barry Rodger, Imelda Maher & Rónán Riordan, A Decade of EU Law in the Courts of Scotland and Ireland: National Legal Systems Compared, 41 LegalStud. 311 (2021); Lisa Conant, Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union (2002); Karen Alter, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an InternationalRule of Law in Europe 48 (2001).
Barry Rodger, Imelda Maher & Rónán Riordan, A Decade of EU Law in the Courts of Scotland and Ireland: National Legal Systems Compared, 41 LegalStud. 311 (2021); Lisa Conant, Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union (2002); Karen Alter, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an InternationalRule of Law in Europe 48 (2001).
The confidence intervals are reported in the online Appendix, Table 13.
Arthur Dyevre et al., Uncertainty and Legal Disintegration: Evidence from Brexit (Oct. 31, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3276189.
That is, after June 23, 2016: Cartier Int'l AG v. British Telecomms. Plc [2018] UKSC 28 (with two cross-citations).
For general data on the top cited courts, see infra Table 6.
The data for all countries can be found in the online Appendix, Tables 14-15.
See online Appendix, Tables 14-15 (also reporting these statistical tests).
See, e.g., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism (Tanja A. Börzel & Thomas Risse eds., 2016)
Federalism and LegalUnification: AComparative EmpiricalInvestigation of Twenty Systems (Daniel Halberstam, Mathias Reimann & Jorge Sanchez-Cordero eds., 2012).
See also online Appendix, Table 16 (the definition of the areas of law) and Table 17 (for the data underlying Figure 8).
For this purpose, we omit cases that, according to these variables, (i) are shorter than ten words of engagement; (ii) are part of a chain; (iii) are part of the parties' submissions with no reference by the court itself; (iv) or where agreement with the case was not applicable, indicating that the citation was part of the factual background rather than the substantive argument.
For a similar argument in the use of comparative law by the CJEU, see an article by the former President of the CJEU: Josse Mertens de Wilmars, Le droit comparé dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, 110 Journaldes Tribunaux 37 (1991).
Karin Leijon, National Courts and Preliminary References: Supporting Legal Integration, Protecting National Autonomy or Balancing Conflicting Demands?, 44 W. Eur. Pol. 510 (2021).
Mikael Rask Madsen, Pola Cebulak & Micha Wiebusch, Backlash Against International Courts: Explaining the Forms and Patterns of Resistance to International Courts, 14 Int'lJ.L. Context 197 (2018); Andreas Hofmann, Resistance Against the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 Int'lJ.L. Context 258 (2018).
Mikael Rask Madsen, Pola Cebulak & Micha Wiebusch, Backlash Against International Courts: Explaining the Forms and Patterns of Resistance to International Courts, 14 Int'lJ.L. Context 197 (2018); Andreas Hofmann, Resistance Against the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14 Int'lJ.L. Context 258 (2018).
The package consists of: Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 1; Regulation (EU) 1260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection with Regard to the Applicable Translation Arrangements, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 89; Council Agreement 2013/C on a Unified Patent Court, 2013 O.J. (L 175) 1.
The package consists of: Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 1; Regulation (EU) 1260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection with Regard to the Applicable Translation Arrangements, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 89; Council Agreement 2013/C on a Unified Patent Court, 2013 O.J. (L 175) 1.
The package consists of: Regulation (EU) 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 1; Regulation (EU) 1260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 Implementing Enhanced Cooperation in the Area of the Creation of Unitary Patent Protection with Regard to the Applicable Translation Arrangements, 2012 O.J. (L 361) 89; Council Agreement 2013/C on a Unified Patent Court, 2013 O.J. (L 175) 1.
See When Was the Unitary Patent System Launched?, Eur. Patent Office, www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent/start#.
HR 7 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BZ4115 (Neth.); HR 3 november 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 (Neth.); Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48; Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Nov. 19, 2009, 17 Ob 24/09t (Austria); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], May 5, 2001, X ZR 227/99 (Ger.).
HR 7 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BZ4115 (Neth.); HR 3 november 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 (Neth.); Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48; Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Nov. 19, 2009, 17 Ob 24/09t (Austria); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], May 5, 2001, X ZR 227/99 (Ger.).
HR 7 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BZ4115 (Neth.); HR 3 november 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 (Neth.); Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48; Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Nov. 19, 2009, 17 Ob 24/09t (Austria); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], May 5, 2001, X ZR 227/99 (Ger.).
HR 7 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BZ4115 (Neth.); HR 3 november 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 (Neth.); Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48; Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Nov. 19, 2009, 17 Ob 24/09t (Austria); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], May 5, 2001, X ZR 227/99 (Ger.).
HR 7 juni 2013, ECLI:NL:PHR:2013:BZ4115 (Neth.); HR 3 november 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807 (Neth.); Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48; Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Nov. 19, 2009, 17 Ob 24/09t (Austria); Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], May 5, 2001, X ZR 227/99 (Ger.).
Karen Walsh, Promoting Harmonisation Across the European Patent System Through Judicial Dialogue and Cooperation, 50 Int'lRev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 408 (2019).
See contra Reto Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Matthias Lamping & Hanns Ullrich, The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern (Max Planck Inst. for Intell. Prop. & Competition Law Rsch. Paper No. 12-12, 2012), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2169254. For a commentary on the role of comparative role in patent law, see Walsh, supra note 97.
See contra Reto Hilty, Thomas Jaeger, Matthias Lamping & Hanns Ullrich, The Unitary Patent Package: Twelve Reasons for Concern (Max Planck Inst. for Intell. Prop. & Competition Law Rsch. Paper No. 12-12, 2012), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2169254. For a commentary on the role of comparative role in patent law, see Walsh, supra note 97.
Giovanni Maria Riccio, The Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on National Courts in Copyright, in Copyright and FundamentalRights in the DigitalAge: AComparative Analysis 155 (Oreste Pollicino, Giovanni Riccio & Marco Bassini eds., 2020).
HR 11 januari 2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BB5077 (Neth.).
Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CSK 16/07 (Mar. 13, 2007) (Pol.).
Marcella Favale, Martin Kretschmer & Paul Torremans, Who Is Steering the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice? The Influence of Member State Submissions on Copyright Law, 83 Mod. L. Rev. 831 (2020).
Francisco Ramos, Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts: Testing Three Models of Judicial Behaviour, 2 Glob. Jurist Frontiers 1, 12 (2002). See also Richard Posner, What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), in The EconomicStructure of the Law: The Collected EconomicEssays of Richard Posner 220 (Francesco Parisi ed., 2000); Pauline Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 NYUL. Rev. 383, 401 (2007); Lewis Kornhauser, Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System, 6 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1605, 1612 (1995).
Francisco Ramos, Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts: Testing Three Models of Judicial Behaviour, 2 Glob. Jurist Frontiers 1, 12 (2002). See also Richard Posner, What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), in The EconomicStructure of the Law: The Collected EconomicEssays of Richard Posner 220 (Francesco Parisi ed., 2000); Pauline Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 NYUL. Rev. 383, 401 (2007); Lewis Kornhauser, Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System, 6 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1605, 1612 (1995).
Francisco Ramos, Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts: Testing Three Models of Judicial Behaviour, 2 Glob. Jurist Frontiers 1, 12 (2002). See also Richard Posner, What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), in The EconomicStructure of the Law: The Collected EconomicEssays of Richard Posner 220 (Francesco Parisi ed., 2000); Pauline Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 NYUL. Rev. 383, 401 (2007); Lewis Kornhauser, Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System, 6 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1605, 1612 (1995).
Francisco Ramos, Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts: Testing Three Models of Judicial Behaviour, 2 Glob. Jurist Frontiers 1, 12 (2002). See also Richard Posner, What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), in The EconomicStructure of the Law: The Collected EconomicEssays of Richard Posner 220 (Francesco Parisi ed., 2000); Pauline Kim, Lower Court Discretion, 82 NYUL. Rev. 383, 401 (2007); Lewis Kornhauser, Adjudication by a Resource-Constrained Team: Hierarchy and Precedent in a Judicial System, 6 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1605, 1612 (1995).
Cartier, supra note 83.
Ansgar Ohly, The Liability of Intermediaries for Trademark Infringement, in Research Handbook on Trademark Law Reform 396 (Graeme Dinwoodie & Mark Janis eds., 2021).
Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] July 4, 2000, 40b173/00w (Austria). See also Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Mar. 14, 2005, 4Ob255/04k (Austria) (on freedom of establishment).
Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] July 4, 2000, 40b173/00w (Austria). See also Oberster Gerichtshof [OGH] [Supreme Court] Mar. 14, 2005, 4Ob255/04k (Austria) (on freedom of establishment).
On copyrights, see Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Feb. 17, 2004, Bull. civ. I, No. 01-17569 (Fr.). On posted workers, see Cass. ass. plén., Oct. 23, 2015, No. A1325467 (Sté A. Rosa Flusschiff Gmbh C/URSSAF d'Alsace) (Fr.); and on conflict of laws in competition law, see Cass. 1e civ., Oct. 10, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. 16-25259 (Fr.); HR 12 december 2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BF0518 (Neth.).
On copyrights, see Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Feb. 17, 2004, Bull. civ. I, No. 01-17569 (Fr.). On posted workers, see Cass. ass. plén., Oct. 23, 2015, No. A1325467 (Sté A. Rosa Flusschiff Gmbh C/URSSAF d'Alsace) (Fr.); and on conflict of laws in competition law, see Cass. 1e civ., Oct. 10, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. 16-25259 (Fr.); HR 12 december 2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BF0518 (Neth.).
On copyrights, see Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Feb. 17, 2004, Bull. civ. I, No. 01-17569 (Fr.). On posted workers, see Cass. ass. plén., Oct. 23, 2015, No. A1325467 (Sté A. Rosa Flusschiff Gmbh C/URSSAF d'Alsace) (Fr.); and on conflict of laws in competition law, see Cass. 1e civ., Oct. 10, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. 16-25259 (Fr.); HR 12 december 2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BF0518 (Neth.).
On copyrights, see Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Feb. 17, 2004, Bull. civ. I, No. 01-17569 (Fr.). On posted workers, see Cass. ass. plén., Oct. 23, 2015, No. A1325467 (Sté A. Rosa Flusschiff Gmbh C/URSSAF d'Alsace) (Fr.); and on conflict of laws in competition law, see Cass. 1e civ., Oct. 10, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. 16-25259 (Fr.); HR 12 december 2008, ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BF0518 (Neth.).
Specifically, the Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, [2001] OJ L 12/1, repealed by Regulation (EU) No. 1215/12 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2012] OJ L 351/1.
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
S.T.S., Nov. 21, 2017 (4113/2017) (Spain); S.T.S., July 5, 2007 (4493/2007) (Spain); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. I CK 263/05 (Oct. 26, 2005) (Pol.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. III CZP 38/18 (Sept. 7, 2018) (Pol.); BGH Aug 3, 2011, XII ZB 187/10 (Ger.); Inalta Curte de Casatie si Justitie, Sep 30, 2016, 1742/2106 (Rom.).
W. Tankers Inc. v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA [2007] UKHL 4.
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., Nov. 19, 2002, Bull. civ. I, SA Banque Worms c/Épx Brachot (Fr.).
BGH June 28, 2012, I ZR 35/11 (Ger.); see also BGH Nov. 10, 2009, VI ZR 217/08 (Ger.).
Green, supra note 76.
Madsen et al., supra note 93.
Alter, supra note 80; Conant, supra note 80.
Gelter & Siems, supra note 4.
While we excluded non-private-law judgments (see supra Table 1), some cases were classified as "public law" if, in a private law case, topics of public law (e.g., human rights) constituted the core of the analysis. The divide into broad areas of law in Figure 9 is somewhat limited as these categories cover many more specific areas of law. For example, the category "civil law" of Figure 9 includes "core civil law" (i.e., contract, tort, unjustified enrichment, and property law) but also employment law and family law. Even more so, it is the case that "commercial law" can be divided into many sub-categories, such as corporate law, IP law, banking law, capital markets law, competition law, etc.120 Thus, for a more nuanced picture, first of all, we refer to Figure 8 (discussed in the previous section), showing the specific areas of law that most frequently attract cross-citations. Here, core civil law and civil procedure are at the top of the list, with 31% and 14% respectively, followed by IP at 9% and conflict of laws at 6%. Second, the subsequent Table 6 offers further granularity, as it presents the specifics of these most-cited areas of law for the fifteen countries with twenty-five or more cross-citations (i.e., the reduced sample). Table 6 shows that cross-citations span across the whole spectrum of specific legal fields. For instance, core civil law was most frequently cited in ten and civil procedure in five countries. It is also interesting to note that there are legal fields which are dominant only in one country, such as family law (France), international trade (Germany), public international law (Italy), and human rights law (United Kingdom), while IP law was the area with most cross-citations in both the Netherlands and Germany. Contrasting the information of Table 6 with Figure 9 also shows the choices made in classifying topics into areas of law. For example, according to Figure 9, "commercial law" was the most frequent area for Austria while in Table 6 this is "core civil law." The explanation is that in Table 6 more precise sub-categories for "commercial law" are used and thus "core civil law" (with its ten of the twenty-five cross-citations) could overtake commercial law. 121 The third column of Table 6 contains information about the most frequently cited courts. The percentage value for each country shows that there seems to be a strong link between certain jurisdictions when it comes to cross-citations in supreme court judgments (as in the case of the Austrian Court which, in the sample of twenty-five decisions, only cites the German one), whereas others cite a number of foreign courts (such as the U.K., Dutch, and French Courts which frequently draw inspiration from multiple courts, as it will be further discussed below, indicating that it is not so much a matter of language barrier or similarity of legal systems, but rather of experience and the court and the motive behind using cross-citations).122 It also seems likely that
See online Appendix, Tables 16, 18 (listing the areas of law).
On Austria, see also Gelter & Siems, supra note 2, at 62.
D'Andrea et al., supra note 7.
By contrast, in private law topics, the U.K. Supreme Court cites more often common law courts outside of Europe, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. See, e.g., Tamás Gyorfi, The Supreme Court (House of Lords) of the United Kingdom, in Comparative ConstitutionalReasoning 679, 706 (András Jakab, Arthur Dyevre & Giulio Itzcovich eds., 2017) (in a sample of forty cases finding, there were, for example, twelve references to Canadian case law and ten to New Zealand case law).
Maarten Feteris, Roadmap on Comparative Law in the Case-Law and Practice of the Supreme Courts of the EU, 17 Utrecht L. Rev. 6 (2021).
See, e.g., Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22 (the most frequently cited case for the use of comparative law by courts, itself featuring multi-jurisdictional cross-citations which we associated with more substantive engagement).
Neil MacCormick, Juridical Pluralism and the Risk of Constitutional Conflict, in Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth 97 (Neil MacCormick ed., 1999); Luisa Antoniolli, Taking Legal Pluralism Seriously: The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Role of International Law Before US Federal Courts, 12 Ind. J. Glob. LegalStud. 651 (2005); Joxerramon Bengoetxea, Rethinking EU Law in the Light of Pluralism and Practical Reason, in TransnationalLaw: Rethinking European Law and LegalThinking 145 (Miguel Maduro, Kaarlo Tuori & Suvi Sankari eds., 2014).
Neil MacCormick, Juridical Pluralism and the Risk of Constitutional Conflict, in Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth 97 (Neil MacCormick ed., 1999); Luisa Antoniolli, Taking Legal Pluralism Seriously: The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Role of International Law Before US Federal Courts, 12 Ind. J. Glob. LegalStud. 651 (2005); Joxerramon Bengoetxea, Rethinking EU Law in the Light of Pluralism and Practical Reason, in TransnationalLaw: Rethinking European Law and LegalThinking 145 (Miguel Maduro, Kaarlo Tuori & Suvi Sankari eds., 2014).
Neil MacCormick, Juridical Pluralism and the Risk of Constitutional Conflict, in Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth 97 (Neil MacCormick ed., 1999); Luisa Antoniolli, Taking Legal Pluralism Seriously: The Alien Tort Claims Act and the Role of International Law Before US Federal Courts, 12 Ind. J. Glob. LegalStud. 651 (2005); Joxerramon Bengoetxea, Rethinking EU Law in the Light of Pluralism and Practical Reason, in TransnationalLaw: Rethinking European Law and LegalThinking 145 (Miguel Maduro, Kaarlo Tuori & Suvi Sankari eds., 2014).
Julie Artis & Andrew Krabs, Family Law and Social Change: Judicial Views of Joint Custody, 1998-2011, 40 Law & Soc. Inquiry 723 (2015).
Andenas & Fairgrieve, supra note 1, at 9.
Anthea Roberts, Comparative International Law: The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 60 Int'l& Comp. L.Q. 57 (2011).
Fogarty v. United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 762; Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 761.
Fogarty v. United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 762; Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom, [2001] ECHR 761.
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
Jones v. Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26; Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Cth. Aff. [2017] UKSC 62; Belhaj v. Straw [2017] UKSC 3; HR 24 september 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BM7679 (Neth.); HR 01 december 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3054 (Neth.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 25 febbraio 2009, n. 4461 (It.). See also other interconnected cases on state immunity for war crimes during World War II in Italy: Cass., sez. civile unite, 29 maggio 2008, n. 14201; 14202; 14208; 14209; 14210 and 14212, as well as 21 febbraio 2013, n. 4284 (It.). See also Natoniewski v. Germany, Case No. IV CSK 465/09, ILDC 1996 (PL 2010) (Oct. 29, 2010) (Pol.).
HR 22 december 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:A21593 (Neth.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. V CSK 66/16 (Oct. 27, 2016) (Pol.); Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 26-04-2016 in Proceedings No. 1212/14.5T8LSB.L1.S1 (Port.); Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Gov't of Pak. [2010] UKSC 46.
HR 22 december 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:A21593 (Neth.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. V CSK 66/16 (Oct. 27, 2016) (Pol.); Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 26-04-2016 in Proceedings No. 1212/14.5T8LSB.L1.S1 (Port.); Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Gov't of Pak. [2010] UKSC 46.
HR 22 december 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:A21593 (Neth.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. V CSK 66/16 (Oct. 27, 2016) (Pol.); Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 26-04-2016 in Proceedings No. 1212/14.5T8LSB.L1.S1 (Port.); Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Gov't of Pak. [2010] UKSC 46.
HR 22 december 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:A21593 (Neth.); Sad Najwyzszy, Case No. V CSK 66/16 (Oct. 27, 2016) (Pol.); Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 26-04-2016 in Proceedings No. 1212/14.5T8LSB.L1.S1 (Port.); Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Gov't of Pak. [2010] UKSC 46.
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16-50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/ arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 07, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Jun. 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.).
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16-50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/ arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 07, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Jun. 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.).
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16-50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/ arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 07, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Jun. 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.).
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16-50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/ arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 07, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Jun. 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.).
Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16-50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/ arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 07, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Jun. 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.).
Cass., sez. civile I, 16 ottobre 2007, n. 21748 (It.).
HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.); U.K. House of Lords, Rees v. Darlington Memorial NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 12-03-2015 in Proceedings No. 1212/08.4TBBCL. G2.S1 (Port.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 22 dicembre 2015, n. 25767 (It.); Cass. ass. plén., Nov. 17, 2000, No. 99-13.701 (Fr.).
HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.); U.K. House of Lords, Rees v. Darlington Memorial NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 12-03-2015 in Proceedings No. 1212/08.4TBBCL. G2.S1 (Port.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 22 dicembre 2015, n. 25767 (It.); Cass. ass. plén., Nov. 17, 2000, No. 99-13.701 (Fr.).
HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.); U.K. House of Lords, Rees v. Darlington Memorial NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 12-03-2015 in Proceedings No. 1212/08.4TBBCL. G2.S1 (Port.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 22 dicembre 2015, n. 25767 (It.); Cass. ass. plén., Nov. 17, 2000, No. 99-13.701 (Fr.).
HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.); U.K. House of Lords, Rees v. Darlington Memorial NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 12-03-2015 in Proceedings No. 1212/08.4TBBCL. G2.S1 (Port.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 22 dicembre 2015, n. 25767 (It.); Cass. ass. plén., Nov. 17, 2000, No. 99-13.701 (Fr.).
HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.); U.K. House of Lords, Rees v. Darlington Memorial NHS Trust [2003] UKHL 52; Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice] of 12-03-2015 in Proceedings No. 1212/08.4TBBCL. G2.S1 (Port.); Cass., sez. civile unite, 22 dicembre 2015, n. 25767 (It.); Cass. ass. plén., Nov. 17, 2000, No. 99-13.701 (Fr.).
Basil Markesinis, Case Law and Comparative Law: Any Wider Lessons?, 11 Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 717 (2003).
Andenas & Fairgrieve, supra note 1, at 12.
Bobek, supra note 1.
See further online Appendix, Table 20.
Bobek, supra note 1, at 14.
For an in-depth analysis of the difference between the Czech and the Slovakian Supreme Courts, see Bobek, supra note 1, at 175.
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs. Ltd. [2002] UKHL 22; Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for judicial matters] 1e civ., July. 5, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. F16- 50.025 and B16-16.901/arrêt 825 (Fr.); Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court for ju-dicial matters] ass. plén., Oct. 05, 2018, No. H12-30.138/arrêt 637 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., Sept. 21, 2018, No. S1019053 (Fr.); Cass. 1e civ., May 7, 2017, Bull. civ. I, No. U1528597/ arrêt 824 (Fr.); Cass. ass. plén., June 19, 2015, Nos. S 14-21.323 and K 15-50.002 (Fr.) (French surrogacy cases); HR 18 maart 2005, ECLI:NL:PHR:2005:AR5213 (Neth.) (Dutch wrongful life case).
See further online Appendix, Table 21.
John Bell, The Argumentative Status of Foreign Legal Arguments, 8 Utrecht L. Rev. 8 (2012).
For a similar finding using qualitative empirical methods, see Elaine Mak, Comparative Law Before the Supreme Courts of the UK and the Netherlands: An Empirical and Comparative Analysis, in Courts and Comparative Law, supra note 1, at 407.
See further Anne-Marie Slaughter, A Global Community of Courts, 44 Harv. Int'lL.J. 194 (2003).
The impact of both EU law and the ECHR is a topic of both political debates and academic writing. See, respectively, e.g., How Much Legislation Comes from Europe?, House of Commons Library (Oct. 13, 2010), https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp10-62; Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Can the European Court of Human Rights Shape European PublicOrder? (2021).
The impact of both EU law and the ECHR is a topic of both political debates and academic writing. See, respectively, e.g., How Much Legislation Comes from Europe?, House of Commons Library (Oct. 13, 2010), https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp10-62; Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Can the European Court of Human Rights Shape European PublicOrder? (2021).
