Iura novit curia

Last updated
Istanbul - Museo archeol. - Giudice romano, ca. 425-450 d.C. - da Afrodisia - Foto G. Dall'Orto 28-5-2006 04.jpg

Iura novit curia is a Latin legal maxim expressing the principle that "the court knows the law", i.e., that the parties to a legal dispute do not need to plead or prove the law that applies to their case. [1] The maxim is sometimes quoted as jura novit curia, iura noscit curia, curia iura novit, curia novit legem or variants thereof. [1]

Contents

The maxim is applied principally in civil law systems and is part of the investigative ("inquisitorial") aspect of that legal tradition, as distinguished from the more pronouncedly adversarial approach of common law legal systems. The maxim is first found in the writings of the medieval glossators about ancient Roman law. [2]

Principle

Iura novit curia means that the court alone is responsible for determining which law applies to a particular case, and how. The court applies the law ex officio, that is, without being limited to the legal arguments advanced by the parties (although the court is normally limited to granting the relief sought by the parties). The same principle is also expressed in the related maxim da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius ("give me the facts and I shall give you the law"), sometimes also given as narra mihi factum, narro tibi ius: it is incumbent on the parties to furnish the facts of a case and the responsibility of the judge to establish the applicable law. [1] The maxim also means the parties cannot limit the court's legal cognition (that is, the authority to determine the applicable law). [3]

In its most wide-reaching form, the principle of iura novit curia allows the court to base its decision on a legal theory that has not been the subject of argument by the parties. [4] However, in view of the parties' right to be heard ( audiatur et altera pars ) and the adversarial principle, both also recognized in civil law systems, this freedom is not unlimited. Many jurisdictions require the court to allow the parties to address any points of law first raised by the court itself. [4]

Because a wide application of iura novit curia may conflict with the parties' authority (in private law) to decide what is to be the subject of litigation, courts in most jurisdictions normally stay within the bounds established by the pleadings and arguments of the parties. [5] In criminal law, the court's freedom to apply the law is generally constrained at least to some extent by the legal characterization of the alleged facts in the indictment.

Exceptions

The principle of iura novit curia may be subject to exceptions. For instance, courts may be required by law to submit certain questions of law (such as the constitutionality of a statute, or the application of European law) to the review of a specialized other court (such as a constitutional court or the European Court of Justice).

The codes of procedure may also provide that the court may call upon the parties or experts to prove or determine any applicable foreign law. [3] In common law countries in particular, the rule is iura aliena non novit curia, i.e., judges may not rely on their own knowledge of foreign law, but the party who relies on it must prove it. In civil law systems, the same rule generally applies in attenuated forms: judges may (or should to the extent possible) make their own investigations of foreign law. [6]

Applicability

According to Mattias Derlén, "it has traditionally been claimed that jura novit curia applies in civil law systems but not in common law systems". [7] Francis Jacobs described this view as follows:

It might be tempting to suggest that there is a basic distinction between two fundamentally different types of procedure within the Member States: a distinction between, broadly speaking, the continental systems on the one hand and the English, Irish and Scottish systems on the other. On that view, the court in the continental systems is deemed to know the law ('jura novit curia' or 'curia novit legem'); it must apply the appropriate legal rules to the facts as they are presented to the court by the parties ('da mihi factum, dabo tibi jus'); and if necessary it will engage for that purpose in its own legal research. In the English, Irish and Scottish systems, on the other hand, the court has a less active, or even a passive, role: the procedure is generally based on the assumption that the court has no independent knowledge of the law, that it is dependent upon the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties, and that its function essentially is to adjudicate on the exclusive basis of their submissions. According to one commentator, 'perhaps the most spectacular feature of English procedure is that the rule curia novit legem has never been and is not part of English law'. [8]

Jacobs explains, however, that this distinction is exaggerated on closer examination: Civil law courts, iura novit curia notwithstanding, may not exceed the limits of the case as defined by the claims of the parties and may not generally raise a new point involving new issues of fact. A common law court, too, will sua sponte take a point which is a matter of public policy; it will, for instance, refuse to enforce an illegal contract even if no party raises this point. [9] The common law's lack of the rule of iura novit curia therefore has some relevance in civil proceedings, but matters little in criminal proceedings or in administrative courts. [10]

In international law

Iura novit curia is widely applied by international courts as a general principle of law. While the ICTY declined to do so in one case, the regulations of the International Criminal Court now provide for it. [11] The principle has also been recognized by the International Court of Justice as generally applicable in international proceedings, [12] as well as by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [13] and the World Trade Organization's adjudicating bodies. [14]

Related Research Articles

Administrative law is a division of law governing the activities of executive branch agencies of government. Administrative law includes executive branch rule making, adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common law</span> Law created by judicial precedent

In law, common law is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Roman law</span> Legal system of Ancient Rome (c. 449 BC – AD 529)

Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables, to the Corpus Juris Civilis ordered by Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I. Roman law forms the basic framework for civil law, the most widely used legal system today, and the terms are sometimes used synonymously. The historical importance of Roman law is reflected by the continued use of Latin legal terminology in many legal systems influenced by it, including common law.

A brocard is a legal maxim in Latin that is, in a strict sense, derived from traditional legal authorities, even from ancient Rome. According to the dictionaries, the word is a variant of the Latinized name of Burchard of Worms, Bishop of Worms, Germany, who compiled 20 volumes of Ecclesiastical Rules, although some sources disagree.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary</span> System of courts that interprets and applies the law

The judiciary is the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English law</span> Legal system of England and Wales

English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">General Court (European Union)</span> Part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The General Court, informally known as the European General Court (EGC), is a constituent court of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It hears actions taken against the institutions of the European Union by individuals and member states, although certain matters are reserved for the European Court of Justice. Decisions of the General Court can be appealed to the Court of Justice, but only on a point of law. Prior to the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009, it was known as the Court of First Instance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Maxims of equity</span> Principles that govern the operation of equity within English law

Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts that administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts. Although the most fundamental and time honored of the maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims',The first equitable maxim is 'equity delights in equality' or equity is equality Like other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense. Inquisitorial systems are used primarily in countries with civil legal systems, such as France and Italy, or legal systems based on Islamic law like Saudi Arabia, rather than in common law systems. It is the prevalent legal system in Continental Europe, Latin America, African countries not formerly under British rule, East Asia, Indochina, Thailand, and Indonesia. Most countries with an inquisitorial system also have some form of civil code as their main source of law.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for matter decided and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

<i>Contra proferentem</i> Doctrine of contractual interpretation

Contra proferentem, also known as "interpretation against the draftsman", is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Cassation (Belgium)</span> Supreme court of the Belgian judiciary

The Court of Cassation of Belgium is the supreme court of the Belgian judiciary. The court is composed of thirty judges with life tenure who are nominated by the High Council of Justice of Belgium and appointed by the Belgian federal government. The court handles cases in the two main languages of Belgium, Dutch and French, and provides certain facilities for cases in German. The court is assisted in its work by a public prosecutor's office and a bar association, which both function separately from other structures. The duty of the public prosecutor's office is to provide advisory opinions to the court on how the law ought to be interpreted and applied. The attorneys of the court's bar association assist litigants in proceedings before the court; in certain cases, their assistance is mandatory.

Legal certainty is a principle in national and international law which holds that the law must provide those subject to it with the ability to regulate their conduct.

In law, ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorantia legis neminem excusat, is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Justice of the European Union</span> Institution of the European Union that encompasses the whole judiciary

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the judicial branch of the European Union (EU). Seated in the Kirchberg quarter of Luxembourg City, Luxembourg, this EU institution consists of two separate courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court. From 2005 to 2016 it also contained the Civil Service Tribunal. It has a sui generis court system, meaning 'of its own kind', and is a supranational institution.

In law, the principle of non ultra petita, meaning "not beyond the request" in Latin, means that a court may not decide more than it has been asked to. In particular, the court may not award more to the winning party than it requested. The same principle is expressed in the Latin brocard Ne eat iudex ultra petita partium aut breviter ne ultra petita, often abbreviated to ne ultra petita.

The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Cyprus</span>

The law of Cyprus is a legal system which applies within the Republic of Cyprus. Although Cypriot law is extensively codified, it is still heavily based on English common law in the sense that the fundamental principle of precedent applies.

Ius civile vigilantibus scriptum est is a Latin legal phrase that translates to "civil law is written for the vigilant". It can be traced back to the Roman jurist Quintus Cervidius Scaevola and is to this day referred to in different legal systems and contexts. Many variations of the brocard are known all connoting similar but slightly different concepts.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Derlén, Mattias (2009). Kluwer Law International (ed.). Multilingual interpretation of European Union law. European monographs. Vol. 67. p. 314. ISBN   978-90-411-2853-9.
  2. ↑ Geeroms, Sofie (2004). Foreign law in civil litigation: a comparative and functional analysis. Oxford University Press. p. 30. ISBN   978-0-19-926476-6.
  3. 1 2 van Rhee, C. H. (2005). European traditions in civil procedure. Ius commune europaeum. Vol. 54. Intersentia nv. p. 303. ISBN   978-90-5095-491-4.
  4. 1 2 Brooker, Douglas (30 October 2005). "Va Savoir! – The Adage "Jura Novit Curia" in Contemporary France". Bepress Legal Series (Working Paper 845): 8.
  5. ↑ See Brooker, Douglas (30 October 2005). "Va Savoir! – The Adage "Jura Novit Curia" in Contemporary France". Bepress Legal Series (Working Paper 845): 11. concerning the situation in France.
  6. ↑ Kahn-Freund, Otto (1975). General problems of private international law. Recueil des Cours. Vol. 143. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 306. ISBN   978-90-286-0605-0.
  7. ↑ Derlén, Mattias (2009). Kluwer Law International (ed.). Multilingual interpretation of European Union law. European monographs. Vol. 67. p. 315. ISBN   978-90-411-2853-9.
  8. ↑ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the European Court of Justice cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten, European Court reports 1995 Page I-04705, par. 33. The commentator to which Jacobs refers is F. A. Mann, Fusion of the Legal Professions? Law Quarterly Review 1977, 367 at p. 369.
  9. ↑ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten, European Court reports 1995 Page I-04705, par. 34–35.
  10. ↑ Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten, European Court reports 1995 Page I-04705, par. 34.
  11. ↑ Cryer, Robert Cryer (2007). An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press. p. 377. ISBN   978-0-521-87609-4.
  12. ↑ Oesch, Matthias (2003). Standards of review in WTO dispute resolution. Oxford University Press. p. 50. ISBN   978-0-19-926892-4., where reference is made to the Court's invocation of the principle in the Fisheries Jurisdiction and Nicaragua v. United States cases.
  13. ↑ Pasqualucci, Jo M. (2003). The practice and procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press. p. 154. ISBN   978-0-521-53335-5.
  14. ↑ Ortino, Federico; Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2004). The WTO dispute settlement system, 1995-2003. Kluwer Law International. p. 167. ISBN   978-90-411-2232-2.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.