In an earlier entry I linked to a site showing how to create a long German legal sentence. I believe that must have been a plagiarism, because jurabilis now quotes a file with that material in it as being by Oliver Elzer.

Elzer shows how to get from this:

Vielen Dank für Ihren Brief. Wir beantworten Ihre Fragen, sobald wir mit Herrn Müller darüber gesprochen haben.

to this:

Bezugnehmend auf das vorgenannte Schreiben möchten wir unseren Dank aussprechen. Die Unterfertigten werden in alsbaldiger Erledigung der darin aufgeworfenen interessanten Fragen umgehend auf diese Bezug nehmen, sobald unsererseits die unverzichtbare Rücksprache mit dem derzeit auf einer Reise befindlichen Mandanten gehalten werden konnte.

According to the comments, Elzer is very widely known among law students in Germany. There is a lot of useful material on his site, for instance on civil procedure.

Wahrscheinlich die weltgrößte Sammlung von Links an Lawblogs.

The Instituto Politécnico de Beja in Portugal has a portal (possibly the world’s largest) for legal weblogs in several languages. Here’s an entry page in English.

Deutsche Einführungsseite zur Site. Dieser Internetauftritt soll als Grundlage für Unterricht im WWW dienen.

Thanks to Professor Manuel David Masseno for the information.

New comment added and comments opened temporarily on an earlier entry:

On May 12 2004, I wrote an entry which now seems a complete mess to me. The springboard was the question, ‘Are the words “In dubio pro reo” (Im Zweifel für den Angeklagten) used in English?’, and the answer is ‘No’, because the Latin used in one legal system is often different from the Latin used in another legal system. It would be possible to make a list of Latin terms used in England, the USA, Germany, Austria and Switzerland (to name but a few), and I have a small collection of books from various jurisdictions for this purpose.

How to translate it into English? ‘Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt’ seems a bit colloquial but certainly does the trick.

The conclusion of the entry was, or was meant to be, that the Latin words ‘in dubio pro reo’ are not used in English, nor can the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ be translated as ‘the presumption of innocence’.

I gave details of Google results on the term, and there was some discussion, in the comments too, about the myth among common lawyers that Continental Europe has no presumption of innocence (this point was originally mentioned by Clemens Kochinke in an article to which I refer).

The latest commenter takes issue with what he sees as the suggestion that common law is superior to civil law in this respect. What’s more worrying is that I didn’t think I or anybody else had actually said that! But perhaps the first comment did – it is rather cryptically worded.

If anyone wants to join the fray they should look at the original article and comments.

I accidentally watched ten minutes of George W. Bush and Gerhard Schröder at lunch in Mainz on TV (ARD). Schröder made a short speech, and it was interpreted. He apologized in quite a few words to the interpreter for having added stuff, which I suppose is good and bad. She had a copy of the speech before additions and presumably he saw her adding notes – but this is standard. (Hence ‘Es gilt das gesprochene Wort’: ‘Check against delivery’, written at the top of these speech drafts handed out to interpreters or press).

It is good to hear speeches held and interpreted, and for trainee interpreters a good chance to record them on videotape as practice material. The TV presentation seemed a bit of a mess. Bush didn’t react while Schröder was speaking German, obviously. When the interpreter began, he began his series of facial expressions. Then the English was faded out and we went back to the winter sports. Now, they had already said it was time to go back to sports, but did someone in that studio say, ‘It’s English, no-one will understand it, let’s leave’? I would have thought that Bush’s reactions to the speech were the most interesting thing, whether genuine or rehearsed.

Six o’clock this evening. The snow doesn’t usually settle, but here it’s still snowing.

Guardian article.

Die Guardian berichtet über rechtliche Probleme mit der Charles-Camilla-Hochzeit. Nicht nur muss bei einer Zivilzeremonie die Öffentlichkeit eingelassen werden – auch wenn die Hochzeit nicht im Standesamt stattfindet – sondern es ist jetzt nicht mal klar, ob Mitglieder der königlichen Familie überhaupt standesamtlich getraut werden dürfen.

Zum Eherecht: in England (ich will hier nichts über Schottland behaupten) gibt es zwei Formen der Trauung – kirchlich und “civil”. Technisch bedeutet kirchlich nur anglikanisch, während Trauungen in anderen Kirchen oder Religionen als zivil, also standesamtlich gelten. Weniger technisch gesehen, heiratet man in einer Kirche oder einem Standesamt, nicht (wie in Deutschland) immer im Standesamt und manchmal zusätzlich noch in der Kirche.

Die Guardian zitiert Dr. Stephen Cretney, der Autor von einem der bekanntesten Studientexte zu Familienrecht und auch von einer Geschichte des Familienrechts im 20. Jahrhundert.

bq. Preparations for the wedding had already taken a farcical turn yesterday after Dr Cretney and other experts raised the question of whether the marriage was actually legal under existing law. Dr Cretney argues that members of the royal family have no power under marriage law to contract civil marriages.

bq. He called on the government to introduce a one-sentence bill authorising royals to marry in civil ceremonies to remove any doubts about the legality of the marriage.

…

bq. Doubts voiced by Dr Cretney centre on the 1949 Marriage Act, a consolidation of the law on marriage. The earlier Marriage Act of 1836, which allowed civil marriages in England and Wales for the first time, said nothing in it “shall extend to the marriage of any of the royal family.”

bq. The 1949 act worded the provision differently, saying that nothing in that act should affect “any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the royal family”.

bq. Lord Falconer told the Mail on Sunday that this meant there was no need for royals to post banns or obtain a licence, but left them free to marry in a civil ceremony.