Comparing the Prospective Effect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions PDF
Preview Comparing the Prospective Effect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions
Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law Eva Steiner Comparing the Prospective Eff ect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions Ius Comparatum – Global Studies in Comparative Law Volume 3 SeriesEditors KatharinaBoele-Woelki,UniversityofUtrecht,TheNetherlands Diego P. Fernandez Arroyo, Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, Sciences Po, France FoundingSeriesEditors Jürgen Basedow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law,Germany GeorgeBermann,ColumbiaUniversitySchoolofLaw,USA EditorialBoard BénédicteFauvarque-Cosson,UniversitéPanthéon-Assas,Paris2,France GiuseppeFrancoFerrari,UniversitàBocconi,Milan,Italy ToshiyukiKono,KyushuUniversity,Fukuoka,Japan MarekSafjan,CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion,Luxembourg JorgeSanchezCordero,MexicanCenterofUniformLaw,Mexico Ulrich Sieber, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law, Germany Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/11943 AcademieInternationaledeDroitCompare InternationalAcademyofComparativeLaw Eva Steiner Comparing the Prospective Effect of Judicial Rulings Across Jurisdictions 123 EvaSteiner TheDicksonPoonSchoolofLaw King’sCollegeLondon London,UK ISSN2214-6881 ISSN2214-689X (electronic) IusComparatum–GlobalStudiesinComparativeLaw ISBN978-3-319-16174-7 ISBN978-3-319-16175-4 (eBook) DOI10.1007/978-3-319-16175-4 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015938784 SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof thematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation, broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthisbook arebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper SpringerInternational PublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+Business Media(www. springer.com) Foreword Thissurveyofthetemporaleffectsofjudicialdecisionsindifferentjurisdictionsis welcome on several grounds. It deals with an unusual, indeed wholly exceptional situation: that in which a court finds it necessary to limit the temporal effects of its decision. Yet the practice of temporal limitations raises interesting questions of general importance. Moreover, while the practice is found in many, but by no means all, legalsystems, there seems to be little commongroundon the scope of thepractice,orindeedonitsrationale. The most understandable category of cases is perhaps that where a court is competent to strike down legislation: a competence which is necessary in federal systems and in the European Union but which is increasingly common in other jurisdictions.Insuchcases,thecourtmaybeexplicitlyauthorisedtolimittheeffects ofitsjudgement,asistheCourtofJusticeoftheEUinthecaseofEUregulations;or eventosuspendtheeffectsofitsjudgement,asistheFederalConstitutionalCourt inGermany;andthispracticeofsuspensionisfrequentlyadoptedbytheSupreme CourtofCanada. Buttemporallimitationsmayalsobefoundwherecourts(normallythehighest courtsinthesystem)deemitnecessarytooverrule,ortodepartfrom,earlierjudicial decisions, as with prospective overruling,as adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such temporal limitations may be regarded as justified where the consequences would otherwise cause injustice or severe harm, generally social, economic or financial.Orindeedsuchlimitationsmaybeconsiderednecessarywhere,fordiverse reasons,theinstantdecision,ifnotlimitedinitstemporaleffects,wouldhavesuch adverseconsequences. Itisdifficulttocategorisethesituationswherethequestionoftemporallimitation properlyarises,andtoassesstheadvantagesanddisadvantages.Buttheissuesare so well explored by Eva Steiner in her opening chapter and by the authors of the reports on the legal systems surveyed in this book that the temptation to discuss them in this foreword must be resisted. Suffice it to say that readers of the book willfindmuchofinterestincomparingthedifferentnationalsystems.Theywillbe v vi Foreword ledtoreflectonthepracticalaspectsofthetopicandthedifficultiesarising,andon jurisprudentialand constitutional issues, including such matters as the role of the courts,the natureofthe judicialfunction,the role ofprecedentas a sourceof law and more widely the separation of powers between legislature and judiciary. This bookisthusavaluablecontributiontolegalpracticeandtolegaltheory. December2014 FrancisG.Jacobs Contents 1 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffect-fromComparison toSystematisation .......................................................... 1 EvaSteiner PartI EuropeanJurisdictions 2 The Prospectiveand RetrospectiveEffect ofJudicial DecisionsinIreland ........................................................ 27 NiamhConnolly 3 Effects in Time of Judgments in the Netherlands: ProspectiveOverrulingandRelatedTechniques........................ 65 C.H.vanRheeandWytzevanderWoude 4 TheAbilitytoDeviatefromthePrincipleofRetroactivity: AWell-EstablishedPracticeBeforetheConstitutional CourtandtheCouncilofStateinBelgium .............................. 81 SarahVerstraelen, PatriciaPopelier, andSébastienVanDrooghenbroeck 5 ChangingtheCaseLawprofuturo–APuzzleofLegal TheoryandPractice........................................................ 115 AdamSagan 6 TowardsaSophisticatedTheoryofPrecedent?Prospective andRetrospectiveOverrulingintheCzechLegalSystem............. 143 ZdeneˇkKühn 7 TheRoleofCaseLawandtheProspectiveOverruling intheGreekLegalSystem................................................. 163 AntoniosKarampatzosandGeorgiosMalos vii viii Contents 8 The Portuguese Experience of Judge-Made Law andthePossibilityofProspectiveIntentionsandEffects............... 185 JoséManuelArosoLinharesandAnaMargaridaGaudêncio 9 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffectinItaly........................ 203 MicheleTaruffo PartII North-AmericanJurisdictions 10 RetroactivityandProspectivityofJudgmentsinAmericanLaw ..... 209 RichardS.Kay 11 Canada:TheRiseofJudgmentswithSuspendedEffect............... 247 LionelSmith PartIII South-AmericanJurisdictions 12 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffectinArgentina ................. 263 AlejandraRodríguezGalán 13 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffectinBrazilianLaw ............ 285 HumbertoDallaBernardinadePinho 14 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffectinVenezuela ................. 313 HildegardRondóndeSansó PartIV Asian-OceanianJurisdictions 15 JudicialRulingswithProspectiveEffectinAustralia .................. 349 JamesDouglas,EleanorAtkins,andHamishClift 16 Prospective Overruling in Singapore: A Judicial FrameworkfortheFuture? ............................................... 359 GaryK.Y.Chan Judicial Rulings with Prospective Effect- I.B. General LegalTheory-19thCongressoftheInternationalAcademia ofComparativeLaw-Vienna2014.............................................. 381 About the Contributors GaryK.Y.ChanisanAssociateProfessorattheSMUUniversity,SchoolofLaw (Singapore). Dr.NiamhConnollyisanAssistantProfessoratTrinityCollegeDublin,Schoolof Law(Ireland). Humberto Dalla Bernardina de Pinho is an Associate Professor at the Rio de JaneiroState University(Brazil)andAttorneyGeneral’sAssistantforthe State of RiodeJaneiro. Dr.HildegardRondóndeSansóisEmeritaProfessorattheCentralUniversityof Venezuela,FacultyofLaw(Venezuela)andJudgeattheVenezuelanCorteSuprema deJusticia. JamesDouglasisJudgeattheSupremeCourtofQueensland(Australia). Dr.AlejandraRodríguezGalánistheProfessorofConstitutionalLawattheUni- versityofBuenosAires(Argentina)andGeneralSecretarie,AsociaciónArgentina deDerechoComparado. Ana Margarida Gaudêncio is an Assistant Professor at the Coimbra University SchoolofLaw(Portugal)andafoundingmemberofthePortugueseAssociationfor Theoryand Philosophyof Law andfor SocialPhilosophy(the Portuguesesection oftheInternationalAssociationforLegalandSocialPhilosophy,orIVR). Dr.AntoniosKarampatzosisanAssistantProfessorinPrivateLawattheNational andKapodistrianUniversityofAthens,LawSchool(Greece)andAttorney-at-Law. Richard S. Kay is the Wallace Stevens Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at the University of Connecticut School ix
Description:The list of books you might like
