Metodologija prava EU

Prof. dr. sc. Tamara Ćapeta, LLM (Bruges)

Prof. dr. sc. Iris Goldner Lang, LLM (LSE)

Prof. dr. sc. Tamara Perišin, MJur (Oxon)




Poštovani studenti,

na ovom linku možete pronaći ispitna pitanja iz predmeta Opća načela prava. 

Molimo da svoje eseje pošaljete mailom do 15. svibnja 2019. prema uputama koje su sadržanu u dokumentu u kojem su zadana i pitanja. 



Utorak, 10. travnja 2018., 17.00-18.30, Ćirilometodska 4, dv. I.

Sam Koplewicz, BA (Brown), JD (Harvard)

Harvard Satter Fellow

Politics in All Law: An American Perspective



Ghen v. Rich 

Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc

- Chapter 5 of Duncan Kennedy's a Critique of Adjudication (distributed via email)

This is a short documentary on the Crit movement. 


Srijeda, 18. travnja 2018., 17.00-18.30, Ćirilometodska 4, dv. I.

Martijn Van den Brink


Interpretation of legislation and legitimacy of EU law


About the lecture:

I will discuss questions of interpretation of EU legislation and the political legitimacy of decision-making within the EU. I assigned two articles for this class, which are useful to get a sense of what I will talk about. The first paper is my own. This paper offers a defence of the EU legislature and offers a response to many EU lawyers, who prefer decision-making by the Court of Justice. The paper is useful for the topic of interpretation, because it demonstrates that EU lawyers adopt very inconsistent positions on methods of interpretation to realise the outcome they find most desirable in each case. The paper also explains why we cannot care solely about outcomes. Instead, I argue that the legitimacy of decisions is independent of the quality and justness of these decisions. Once that is understood, it will also be easier to understand the importance of paying more attention to questions of interpretation. Having explained that, I will explain which method of interpretation is the most appropriate if we are concerned about legitimacy. I have attached a paper on legal interpretation by Maduro. That paper is useful because he defends a method of interpretation that most EU lawyers will defend (namely purposivism). I will demonstrate the problems of purposivism and show why, if we care about interpreting legislation in accordance with the intentions of the legislature, we should depart from the written text (textualism). 


Paper by Martijn van der Brink

Paper by Maduro