Abstract
This article examines the 2/2022 PJE Unity Decision of the Curia from the perspective of divergent theoretical and dogmatical views expressed in minority opinions. The case study compares the dissenting opinions and the majority opinion of the judges and aims at demonstrating the fact that theoretical disagreement between judges has a huge impact on legal practice and on the issue of how judges decide cases. The hypothesis of the article is that – in hard legal cases – the reason for the differing opinions is the different theoretical convictions of judges. It seems evident that two legal practitioners, who have different views on cardinal issues of law, such as the concept or the purpose of law, interpret legal norms differently. Using the method of qualitative case analysis, the article analyses the arguments appearing in the justification of the decision.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
