¹ Article 267 TFEU.Google Scholar

² Martijn W Hesselink, The New European Legal Culture, in The New European Private Law 11, 51–55 (2002); Mathias Reinmann, The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 671, 691 (2002); Jen Hendry, Review Essay: Contemporary Comparative Law, 9 German L. J. 2253 (2008); Jaakko Husa, The Tip of the Iceberg or what lies beneath the surface of comparative law, 12(1) Maastricht J. 73, 82 (2005).Google Scholar

³ Karl-Heinz Ladeur, Methodology and European law, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law 100–105, 113 (Mark van Hoecke ed., 2004).Google Scholar

⁴ Dagmar Schiek et al., A Comparative Perspective on Non-Discrimination law, in Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law 1 (Dagmar Schiek et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁵ Labour Law in the Courts: National Judges and the European Court of Justice (Silvana Sciarra ed., 2001); Karen J Alter, The European Court's Political Power (2009); Karen J Alter, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law (2001); Arthur Dyevre, Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics, 2(2) Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 297–327 (2010).Google Scholar

⁶ Alan Watson, Legal Transplant and European Private law, 4 Electronic J. Comp. L. (2000), available at www.ejcl.org/44/art44-2.html; Pierre Legrand, The Impossibility of “Legal Transplants”, 4 Maastricht J. 111–24 (1997); T.T. Arvind, The “Transplant Effect” in Harmonization, 59 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 65 (2010); Jan M Smits, Convergence of Private Law in Europe: Towards a New Ius Commune?, in Comparative Law 219 (Esin Örücü & David Nelken eds., 2007). Others have written about the use of comparative law within European law making. See Rob van Gestel & Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Comparative Law and EU Legislation: Inspiration, Evaluation or Justification?, in The Method and Culture of Comparative Law 301 (Maurice Adams and Dirk Heirbaut eds., 2014); Ladeur, supra note 3.Google Scholar

⁷ Jan M Smits, The Europeanization of National Legal Systems, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative law 229 (Mark van Hoecke ed., 2004); The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz & Bruno de Witte eds., 2012); Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve, Intent on Making Mischief: Seven Ways of Using Comparative Law, in Methods of Comparative Law 25–60 (Pier Giuseppe Monateri ed., 2012); Reinhard Zimmermann, Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 539–78 (Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2008); Paula Giliker, The Europeanisation of English Tort Law (2014).Google Scholar

⁸ Hugh Collins, Why Europe Needs a Civil Code 21 Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 907–22 (2013); CESL, Legal Nationalism or a Plea for Appropriate Governance?, 8 Eur. Rev. Cont. L. 241 (2012).Google Scholar

⁹ Koen Lenaerts & Kathleen Gutman, The Comparative Law Method and the Court of Justice of the EU, in Courts and Comparative Law 139–176 (M Andenas & D Fairgrieve eds., 2015); Koen Lenaerts & José A. Gutiérrez-Fons, To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice, 20 Colum. J. Eur. L. 3–61 (2014); Koen Lenaerts, Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law, 52 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 873–906 (2003).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Esin Örücü, Comparative Law in Practice: The Courts and the Legislator, in Comparative Law 432 (Esin Örücü and David Nelken eds., 2007).Google Scholar

¹¹ Case 283/81, CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità EU:C:1982:335, 1982 E.C.R. 3415.Google Scholar

¹² Koen Lenaerts, The Unity of European Law and the Overload of the ECJ, in The future of the European judicial system in a comparative perspective 211–239 (Ingolf Pernice et al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar

¹³ Many have written detailed discussions of the use of comparative law and the modern functional method. See Esin Örücü, Developing Comparative Law, in Comparative Law 43–65 (Esin Örücü & David Nelken eds., 2007); Roger Cotterrell, Is it so Bad to be Different? Comparative Law and the Appreciation of Diversity, in Comparative Law 133–154 (Esin Örücü & David Nelken eds., 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Mauro Bussani, Current Trends in European Comparative Law: The Common Core Approach, 21 Hastings Int'l and Comp. L. Rev. 785–801 (1998); Konrad Zweigert & Hein Kötz, Introduction to Comparative law 27 (Tony Weir trans., 3rd ed. 1998). See Örücü, supra note 13, at 51; Günter Frankenberg, How to Do Projects with Comparative Law, in Methods of Comparative law 120–43 (Pier Giuseppe Monateri ed., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems Are Not Converting, 45 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 52–81 (1996).Google Scholar

¹⁶ David Nelken, Comparative Law and Legal Studies, in Comparative Law 31 (Esin Örücü and David Nelken eds., 2007).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁸ The motto was codified in Article I-8 of the failed Constitutional Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty does not refer to any symbols of the European Union.Google Scholar

¹⁹ H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World 361–372 (5th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

²⁰ Sue Arrowsmith, The Purpose of the EU Procurement Directives, 14 Cam. Y.B. Euro. Legal. Stud. 1–47 (2012).Google Scholar

²¹ Jule Mulder, EU Non-Discrimination law in the Courts: Approaches to Sex and Sexuality Discrimination in EU law (2017). EU Equality law applies horizontally and primarily focuses on equal treatment within employment and access to good and services. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of specific personal characteristics such as sex, sexuality, race, disability, religion or age. The EU equality directives should thus be distinguished from constitutional equality principles or indeed the EU general principle of equal treatment which have a much broader scope but also often accept justifications.Google Scholar

²² Dagmar Schiek, Comparative Law and European Harmonisation, 21 Eur. Bus. L. Rev. 223 (2010).Google Scholar

²³ See, e.g., Günter Frankenberg, Comparative Law as Critique (2016).Google Scholar

²⁴ Günter Frankenberg, Critical Comparison: Rethinking Comparative Law, 26 Harv. Int'l L.J. 411–456 (1985). Legocentrism puts the law at the center of the analysis, perhaps to the detriment of other cultural factors that are possibly more influential and that determine the de facto outcome of a dispute. It views law as an autonomous, separate and self-contained system. See Husa, Jaakko, About the Methodology of Comparative Law – Some Comments Concerning the Wonderland…, (Maastricht Faculty of Law, Working Paper No. 5, 2007); Husa, supra note 2, at 73–94.Google Scholar

²⁵ Pierre Legrand, Against a European Civil Code, 60 Mod. L. Rev. 44–63 (1997).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ugo Mattei and Anna Di Robilant, The Art and Science of Critical Scholarship, 10(1) Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 29–59 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁷ Silvana Sciarra, Integration through Courts, in Labour Law in the Courts 1 (2001).Google Scholar

²⁸ 401 US 424, 91 S Ct 846 (1971).Google Scholar

²⁹ Alan Watson, Legal Transplants 95 (1974).Google Scholar

³⁰ David Nelken, Defining and Using the Concept of Legal Culture, in Comparative Law 127 (Esin Örücü and David Nelken eds., 2007).Google Scholar

³¹ Vernon Valentine Palmer, From Lerotholi to Lando: Some Examples of Comparative Law Methodology 53 Am. J. Comp. L. 261, 265 (2005); Anne Peters & Heiner Schwenke, Comparative Law Beyond Post-Modernism, 49 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 800–834 (2000); Sjef van Erp, European Private Law, 3 Electronic J. Comp. L. (1999), available at www.ejcl.org/31/abs31-1.html.Google Scholar

³² Martijn W Hesselink, A European Legal Method?, 15 Eur. L. J. 40 (2009).Google Scholar

³³ This claim may hold only on the meta-sphere. See Schiek, supra note 22, at 208.Google Scholar

³⁴ Article 288 TFEU.Google Scholar

³⁵ Jaakko Husa, Farewell to Functionalism or Methodological Tolerance?, 67 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht [RabelsZ] 430 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁶ Simona Piattoni, Multi-level Governance: Historic and Conceptual Analysis, 31 J. Eur. Integration 163, 172 (2009).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Amtenbrink, Fabian, The Multidimensional Constitutional Legal Order of the European Union, 29 Neth. Y.B. Int'l L. 3–68 (2008).Google Scholar

³⁸ Id. at 172–176. See Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary, Unravelling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-level Governance, 97 Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 233–243 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁹ Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen EU:C:1963:1, 1963 E.C.R. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Article 288(2) TFEU.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Article 288(3) TFEU.Google Scholar

⁴² Hesselink, supra note 32, at 40.Google Scholar

⁴³ Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L95/29) as amended by Directive 2011/83/EU of The European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 (OJ 2011 L304/64).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Case C-237/02, Freiburger Kommunalbauten EU:C:2004:209, 2004 E.C.R. I-3403.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Hesselink, supra note 32, at 41–42.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Id. at 42; Christian Joerges, The Impact of European Integration on Private Law, 3 Eur. L. J. 378–406 (1997).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Paul Craig & Gráinne de BuArca, EU Law 239–251 (6th ed., 2015).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Zweigert & Kötz, supra note 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Esin Örücü, Methodology of Comparative Law, in Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 560, 561 (Jan M Smits ed., 2nd ed. 2012); Antonios Emmanuel Platsas, The Functional and the Dysfunctional in the Comparative Method of Law 12 Electronic J. Comp. L. (2008, available at http://www.ejcl.org/123/art123-3.pdf.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ralf Michaels, The Functional Method of Comparative Law, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 369 (Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Alan Watson, Legal Changes, 131 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1132, 1134–1146 (1983); Alan Watson, Legal Transplants and Law Reform, 92 L. Q. Rev. 79, 81 (1976).Google Scholar

⁵² Michele Graziadei, The Functionalist Heritage, in Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions 118–122 (Pierre Legrand & Roderick Munday eds., 2003).Google Scholar

⁵³ Husa, supra note 35, at 430.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Frankenberg, supra note 24, at 423; Jonathan Hill, Comparative Law, Law Reform and Legal Theory, 9 Legal, Oxford J. Stud. 101, 108 (1989); Richard Hyland, Comparative law, in A Companion to Philosophy of law and legal theory 184, 187–90 (Dennis Patterson ed., 1999); Roger Merino Acuña, Comparative Law from Below 16 (2012); Pierre Legrand, Paradoxically, Derrida: For a Comparative Legal Studies, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 631, 659 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Frankenberg, supra note 24, at 434–340; Hyland, supra note 54, at 189; Pierre Schlag, Normativity and the Politics of Form, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 801–932 (1991).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Case 96/81, Commission v Netherlands EU:C:1982:192, 1982 E.C.R. 1792 at ¶ 12. See also infra note 69.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Anna van der Vleuten, The Price of Gender Equality (2007).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Fritz W Scharpf, Crisis and Choice (Ruth Crowley & Fred Thompson trans., Cornell University Press 1991); Alexander Somek, Engineering Equality 51 (2011); C. Barnard, The Principle of Equality in the Community Context, 57 Cambridge L. J. 352 (1998); Evelyn Ellis and Philippa Watson, EU Anti-Discrimination Law 25 (2nd ed. 2012).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Heide Pfarr, Sorgen vor Klageflut sind unbegründet (Böckler Impuls No. 2, 2005), available at http://www.boeckler.de/pdf/impuls0502.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See, e.g., Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000, L180/22); Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000, L303/16); Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L204/23).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Mulder, supra note 21.Google Scholar

⁶² Peters & Schwenke, supra note 31, at 801.Google Scholar

⁶³ See, e.g., Giliker, Paula, The Transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive into UK law: Implementing a Maximum Harmonisation Directive, 23 Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 5–28 (2015).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Husa, supra note 35.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Id. at 430.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See, e.g., Article 1 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC, supra note 60.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Rudolf B Schlesinger, Comparative law Cases-Text-Materials 32–35 (4th ed. 1980); Formation of contract (Schlesinger, Rudolf B. ed., 1968).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Article 258–260 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Adoption of the proper administrative practices (Case 160/82, Commission v Netherlands EU:C:1982:443, 1982 E.C.R. 4637) or settled case-law (Case C-144/99, Commission v Netherlands EU:C:2001:257, 2001 E.C.R. I-3541), which interprets and applies the national provisions in a manner deemed to satisfy the requirements of a directive, is thus usually insufficient.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Schlesinger, Rudolf B., The Common Core of Legal Systems, in Rechtsvergleichung 262–263 (Konrad Zweigert & Hans- Jürgen Puttfarken eds., 1978).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Graziadei, supra note 52, at 108–112.Google Scholar

⁷² Id. at 263.Google Scholar

⁷³ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 67.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Article 288 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Rob van Gestel & Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Why Methods Matter in European Legal Scholarship, 20 Eur. L. J. 292, 309 (2014).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Mattei & Di Robilant, supra note 26, at 35.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Husa, supra note 2, at 92; Hendry, supra note 2, at 2262.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Reinmann, supra note 2, at 673.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Maurice Adams & Jacco Bomhoff, Comparing Law, in Practice and Theory of Comparative Law 1 (2012); Palmer, supra note 31, at 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See, e.g., Siems, Mathias, Comparative Law (2014); Jaakko Husa, A New Introduction to Comparative Law (2015); Geoffrey Samuel, An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method (2014); The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2008).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Peter de Cruz, Comparative Law in a changing World 164–65 (3rd ed. 2007).Google Scholar

⁸² Art 19 TEU and 267 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁸³ Case 170/84, Bilka v Weber von Hartz EU:C:1986:204, 1986 E.C.R. 1607, at ¶ 36.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ The CJEU's approach towards objective justification within the concept of indirect (sex) discrimination is an example. See Tobler, Christa, Indirect Discrimination (2005); Sacha Prechal, Combating Indirect Discrimination in Community Law Context, 20 Legal Issues Eur. Integration 81, 90 (1993); Philippa Watson, Equality of Treatment: A Variable Concept?, 24 Industrial L. J. 33, 43–48 (1995); Dagmar Schiek et al., Indirect Discriminaiton, in Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Non-Discrimination Law 357 (Dagmar Schiek et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Urszula Jaremba, At the Crossroad of National and European Union Law, 6 Erasmus L. Rev. 191, 192 (2013); Juan A Mayoral et al., Creating EU Law Judges, 21 J. Eur. Public Policy 1120–1141 (2014).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Id. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Sciarra, supra note 27.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ David O'Keeffe, Is the Spirit of Article 177 Under Attack? Preliminary References and Admissibility, 23 Eur. L. Rev. 509–536 (1998).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Article 267 TFEU.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ In reality, there are 28 Member States (or once the UK leaves, 27), so the triangle would have 28 vertices plus one vertex for the CJEU, a rather confusing construction.Google Scholar

⁹¹ This is the case when, for example, a national court wants to consider previous preliminary rulings that originated in other Member States in order to determine whether it needs to send a question to the CJEU. Case 283/81, CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità EU:C:1982:335, 1982 E.C.R. 3415, at ¶¶ 8-15.Google Scholar

⁹² Hesselink, supra note 2, at 45–50, 55; Smits, supra note 7, at 229–45.Google Scholar

⁹³ Art 96 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (OJ 2012, L 265/1).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Lenaerts, supra note 9.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ladeur, supra note 3 100–5.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Martin Gelter & Mathias M Siems, Citations to Foreign Courts – Illegitimate and Superfluous, or Unavoidable? Evidence from Europe, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 35–86 (2014).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Christophe McCrudden, A Common Law of Human Rights?: Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights, 20 Legal, Oxford J. Stud. 499 (2000).Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Paula Giliker, The Influence of EU and European Human Rights Law on English Private Law, 64 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 237–265 (2015); Keith Stanton, Comparative Law in the House of Lords and Supreme Court, 42 World, Common L. Rev. 269–296 (2013); Örücü, supra note 10. Arnull has written about the UK courts' willingness to consider EU law within the national context. See Arnull, Anthony, The Law Lords and the European Union: Swimming in the Incoming Tide, 35 Eur. L. J. 57–87 (2010).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Paul Mitchell, The Privy Council and the Difficulty of Distance, 36 Legal, Oxford J. Stud. 26–57 (2016).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen EU:C:1963:1, 1963 E.C.R. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Usually referred to as tertium comparationis, i.e., the common comparative dominator. See Örücü, supra note 49.Google Scholar

¹⁰² de Cruz, supra note 81, at 140–1, 151–8, 153; Craig & de BuArca, supra note 47, at 57–58.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See Beck, Gunnar, The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU (2013); Gerard Conway, The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice (2012). See also Clara MS McGlynn, Equality, Maternity and Questions of Pay, 21 Eur. L. Rev. 327–32 (1996); Evelyn Ellis, Recent Development in European Community Sex Equality Law, 35 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 379–408 (1998). But see Annick Masselot, Pregnancy, Maternity and the Organisation of Family Life, 26 Eur. L. Rev. 239–60 (2001).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Sciarra, supra note 27, at 8; de Cruz, supra note 81, at 140.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Article 94 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice (supra note 93); Claire Kilpatrick, Gender Equality: A Fundamental Dialogue, in Labour law in the courts 31–130 (Silvana Sciarra ed., 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Dyevre, for example, analyzes national courts' behavior from a game theory perspective and argues that the “non-compliance threat” can be sufficient to influence CJEU case law. Arthur Dyevre, The German Federal Constitutional Court and European Judicial Politics, 34 West Eur. Pol. 346–361 (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] May 29, 1974, 2 BvL 52/71, BVerfGE 37, 271; Oct. 22, 1986, 2 BvR 197/83, BVerfGE 73, 339.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Fabian Amtenbrink, The European Court of Justice's Approach to Primacy and European Constitutionalism, in The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States 35–63 (Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz & Bruno de Witte eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Anthony Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice 100–101 (2nd ed. 2006).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Husa, supra note 2, at 85.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Text accompanying supra note 51.Google Scholar

¹¹² Zimmermann, supra note 7, at 578.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Zweigert & Kötz, supra note 14, at 45; de Cruz, supra note 81, at 239.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Manfred Weiss, The Future of Comparative Labour Law as an Academic Discipline and as a Practical Tool, 25 Comp. lab. L. & Pol'y J. 169, 172–3 (2003); Paul Davies & Mark Freedland, The Role of EU Employment Law and Policy in the De-marginalisation of Part-time Work, in Employment policy and the regulation of part-time work in the European Union 63, 67 (Silvana Sciarra et al. eds., 2004).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Weiss, supra note 114, at 173.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ But see Legrand, supra note 54, at 631, 644; Mark van Hoecke & M Warrington, Legal Cultures, Legal Paradigms and Legal Doctrine, 47 Int'l & Comp. L. Q. 495, 535 (1997); Alessandro Somma, At the Patient's Bedside?, 13 Cardozo Bulletin, Electronic L. (2007), available at http://www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/Review/2007/somma2.pdf.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Schiek has written about European human rights, equality and labor law. See, e.g., Schiek et al., supra note 4, at 13–14; Dagmar Schiek, Critical Comparative Law from a Labour Law Perspective, in European Comparative Law 197–221 (Dagmar Schiek et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Article 3 TEU.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Conway, supra note 103, at 53–84.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ellis & Watson, supra note 58, at 25.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Rachel A Cichowski, The European Court and Civil Society 73–118 (2007); Rachel A Cichowski, Women's Rights, the European Court, and Supranational Constitutionalism, 38 Law & Soc'y Rev. 489–512 (2004); Karen J Alter & Jeannette Vargas, Explaining Variation in the Use of European Litigation Strategies European Community Law and British Gender Equality Policy, 33 Comp. Pol. Stud. 452–82 (2000).Google Scholar

¹²² Alter, Karen J., Who are the ‘Masters of the Treaty‘?: European Governance and the European Court of Justice (1998), in The European Court's Political Power 109, 135 (2009); Geoffrey Garrett et al., The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union 52 Int'l Org. 149–76 (1998); Dyevre, supra note 5, at 305; Alec Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of Europe 25–26 (2004).Google Scholar

¹²³ Giliker, supra note 7, at 18; Reinhard Zimmermann, Statuta Sunt stricte interpretanda? Statutes and the Common law: a Continental Perspective, 56 Cambridge L. J. 315, 320 (1997); Robert Alexy & Ralph Dreier, Statutory Interpretation in the Federal Republic of Germany, in Interpreting Statutes, a Comparative Study (Neil MacCormick and Summer, Robert S. eds., 1991) 73–121; de Cruz, supra note 81, at 171–72; Albertina Albors Llorens, The European Court of Justice, More Than a Teleological Court, in 2 The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 374–82 (Alan Dashwood & Angela Ward eds., 2000).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Albors Llorens, supra note 123, at 375–9.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Oreste Pollicino, Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice in the Context of the Principle of Equality, 5 German L. J. 283, 317 (2004); Zimmermann, supra note 123; Interpreting Statutes, a Comparative Study (Neil MacCormick & Summer, Robert S. eds., 1991).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ As opposed to the vertical coherence of the individual Member State. See Michael W Schröter, European Legal Reasoning: A Coherence-based Approach, 92 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie [ARSP] 82, 86–89 (2006).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Joseph H H Weiler, The Constitution of Europe 197 (1999); Sciarra, supra note 27, at 3–4; Alter, Karen J., The Europeans Court's Political Power: The Emergence of an Authoritative International Court in the European Union (1996), in The European Court's Political Power, supra note 122, at 92–108.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Alter, supra note 127, at 100–105; Alter, supra note 122, at 122.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] January 14, 2014, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:rs20140114.2bvr272813, BVerfGE 134, 366. See, e.g., Special Issue: The OMT Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 15 German. L. J. (2014).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Peter Lindseth, Barking vs. Biting: Understanding the German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference … And Its Implications for EU Reform, (Eutopialaw, 03 June 2016), available at http://eutopialaw.com/2014/02/10/barking-vs-biting-understanding-the-german-constitutional-courts-omt-reference-and-its-implications-for-eu-reform.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Alter, supra note 127, at 98–99.Google Scholar

¹³² Weiler, supra note 127, at 32–33.Google Scholar

¹³³ Arnull, supra note 109, at 100.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Weiss, supra note 114, at 174.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Kilpatrick, supra note 105.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Smits, supra note 7, at 244.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Sciarra, supra note 27, at 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Kilpatrick, supra note 105, at 47, 54; Sciarra, supra note 27, at 2-3; Pollicino, supra note 125.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Art 288 TFEU; Craig & de Bürca, supra note 47, at 106.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Hannes Rösler, Auslegungsgrundsätze des Europäischen Verbraucherprivatrecht in Theorie und Praxis, 71 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht [RabelsZ] 495, 504-5 (2007); Zimmermann, supra note 123.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Sciarra, supra note 27, at 27.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Text surrounding supra note 58.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Karen J Alter, Explaining Variation in the Use of European Litigation Strategies, in The European Court's Political Power, supra note 122, at 159, 174 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Arnull, supra note 109, at 98.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Pollicino, supra note 125, at 283, 284-90.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Albors Llorens, supra note 123, at 373-9; Alexy & Dreier, supra note 123, at 73, 87.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Amtenbrink, supra note 108, at 35–63; de Cruz, supra note 81, at 171-2; Albors Llorens, supra note 123, at 373, 380.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Zimmermann, supra note 123, at 315, 321; Mauro Cappelletti, Is the European Court of Justice “Running Wild”?, 12 Eur. L. Rev. 3-17 (1987); Albors Llorens, supra note 123, at 373-98; Walter Mattli & Anne-Marie Slaughter, Law and Politics in the European Union, 49 Int'l Org. 183–190 (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Jürgen Basedow, The Judge's role in European Integration, in The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States 65–79 (Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz & Bruno de Witte eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Hjalte Rasmussen, Between Self-restraint and Activism: A Judicial Policy for the European Court, 13 Eur. L. Rev. 28–38 (1988); Hartley, Trevor C., The European Court, Judicial Objectivity and the Constitution of the European Union, 112 Law Quarterly Rev. 95-109 (1996); Anthony Arnull, Judicial Activism and the Court of Justice: How Should Academics Respond?, in Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice 211 (Mark Dawson et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Dagmar Schiek, Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence between Member States' Prerogatives and Citizens' Autonomy, in The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States 219-43 (Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz & Bruno de Witte eds., 2012).Google Scholar

¹⁵² Ernst Rabel, Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung 3 (1925).Google Scholar

¹⁵³ Zweigert & Kötz, supra note 14, at 36.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ Id. at 37.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 53–54.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ Zweigert & Kötz, supra note 14, at 34Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Rodolfo Sacco, Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Instalment I of II), 39 Am. J. Comp. L. 1, 30 (1991); Elisabetta Grande, Development of Comparative Law in Italy, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 107, 118 (Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2008).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Ugo Mattei, The Comparative Jurisprudence of Schlesinger and Sacco, in Rethinking the Masters of Comparative Law 236, 251 (Annelise Riles ed., 2001).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Rodolfo Sacco, Legal Formants: A Dynamic Approach to Comparative Law (Instalment II of II), 39 Am. J. Comp. L.343, 385 (1991).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Mattei, supra note 158.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Sacco, supra note 157, at 30; Mauro Bussani & Ugo Mattei, The Common Core Approach to European Private Law, available at www.jus.unitn.it/cardozo/common.core/insearch.html; Hyland, supra note 54, at 193.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Sacco, supra note 157, at 25.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Sacco, supra note 159, at 344–345.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Id. at 345.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Sacco, supra note 159, at 385; Hyland, supra note 54), at 194-5; Bussani & Mattei, supra note 161.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Graziadei, supra note 52, at 115–116.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Cotterrell, supra note 13, at 144–154; Mathias M Siems, Variations of Legal Systems, 12 J. Inst'l Econ. 579–602 (2016).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 64.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Rodolfo Sacco, Diversity and Uniformity, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 171, 188 (2001).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Mattei & Di Robilant, supra note 26, at 49-50; Somma, supra note 116, at 8.Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Bernhard Grossfeld, The Strength and Weakness of Comparative Law 9 (Tony Weir trans., 1990).Google Scholar

¹⁷² Pierre Legrand, How to Compare Now, 16 Legal Stud. 232, 235-6 (1996).Google Scholar

¹⁷³ Id. at 239; Legrand, supra note 6, at 114.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Brenda Cossman, Turning the Gaze Back on Itself, 41 Utah L. Rev. 525, 536, 538 (1997); Grossfeld, supra note 171.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Frankenberg, supra note 24, at 445-7.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Legrand, supra note 172, at 238; Legrand, supra note 54, at 707.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 54.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Vivian Grosswald Curran, Cultural Immersion, Difference and Categories in U. S. Comparative Law, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 43–92 (1998).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Nelken, supra note 30.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 229.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Ernst Rabel, Aufgabe und Notwendigkeit der Rechtsvergleichung 3 (1925).Google Scholar

¹⁸² Schiek, supra note 22, at 208.Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Grossfeld, supra note 171.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Raymond Williams, Culture is Ordinary [1958], in The Everyday Life Reader 91-100 (Ben Highmore ed., 2002). See Eagleton, Terry, Culture 95 (2016) (“Culture can be a model of how to live, a form of self-fashioning or self-realization, the fruit of a coterie or the life-form of a whole people, a critique of the present or an image of the future.”).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁵ Pierre Legrand, European Legal Systems Are Not Converging, 45 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 52, 56 (1996).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Graziadei, supra note 52, at 115; Franz von Benda-Beckmann & Keebet von Benda-Beckmann, Why Not Legal Culture, 5 J. Comp. L. 104–117 (2010); Cotterrell, supra note 13; Annelise Riles, Comparative Law and Socio-legal Studies, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Reimann and Zimmermann eds., 2006) 776–804.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ H Partick Glenn, Legal Cultures and Legal Traditions, in Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law 7, 15–16 (Mark Van Hoecke ed., 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Michele Graziadei, Comparative Law, Legal History and the Holistic Approach to Legal Culture 7 ZEuP 531–543 (1999).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Erhard Blankenburg, Civil Litigation rates as Indicators for Legal Culture, in Comparing Legal Cultures 41–68 (David Nelken ed., 1997).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ For example the study how of “legal hegemony, particularly how the law sustains its institutional power despite a persistent gap between the law on the books and the law in action.” Susan Silbey, After Legal Consciousness, 1 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. 323, 323 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ David Nelken, Using Legal Culture: Purposes and Problems 5 J. Comp. L. 5 (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁹² Eagleton, supra note 184, at viii.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Legrand, supra note 185, at 56.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Id. at 59Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Id. At 63.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Nelken, supra note 16, at 4.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Frankenberg, supra note 23.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ See, e.g., Collins, Hugh, Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion, 66 Mod. L. Rev. 16–43 (2003); Hugh Collins, Social Inclusion: A Better Approach to Equality Issues?, 14 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 897-18 (2005); Sandra Fredman, Discrimination Law 25–33 (2nd ed. 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Graziadei, supra note 52, at 104.Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ See supra heading B.Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Case C-177/88, Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen EU:C:1990:383, 1990 E.C.R. I-3941.Google Scholar

²⁰² Case C-191/03, McKenna EU:C:2005:513, 2005 E.C.R. I-7631.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 84–85.Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ ID. at 79–96.Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Id. at 96-112.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Id. at 90.Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ Id. at 225–227.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Id. at 229.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Somma, supra note 116, at 7-8; Mattei & Di Robilant, supra note 26, at 50.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ There has been similar criticism referring to the Trento project on the Common Core of European Private Law. See De, Nik J. Boer, The Theoretical Foundations of the Common Core of European Private Law Project, 17 Eur. Rev. Priv. L. 841-51 (2009); Frankenberg, supra note 14, at 120, 137-41.Google Scholar

²¹¹ Grosswald Curran, supra note 178.Google Scholar

²¹² Legrand, supra note 176.Google Scholar

²¹³ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 227.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ See Günter Frankenberg, Stranger than Paradise, 41 Utah L. Rev. 259, 266 (1997); Günter Frankenberg, Comparative Constitutional Law, in Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law 171, 177 (Mauro Bussani & Ugo Mattei eds., 2012).Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Günter Frankenberg, Constructing Legal Traditions: Introductory Remarks on the Public/Private-distinction as Traditions, 2 Comp. L. Rev. 1-12 (2011); Somma, supra note 116, at 36; Mattei & Di Robilant, supra note 76, at 48.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Anna van der Vleuten, Princers and Prestige, 3 Comp. Eur. Pol. 464–488 (2005).Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Different feminist schools have viewed this differently. While liberal feminist often champion non-discrimination law as ensuring equal treatment of men and women, radical feminists like MacKinnon have criticised liberal approach towards non-discrimination law, because they allow the male standard to define the extent to which women are different, and only grant equal treatment to the extent that women are equal to men. She asks why women can only expect equal rights if they are like men? Alternatively, material feminists often emphasis the need to consider the lived practice as starting point of any critical analysis. Catherine MacKinnon, Reflections on Sex Equality under Law, 100 Yale L. J. 1287-1291 (1991); Joanne Conaghan, Intersectionality and the Feminist Project in Law, in Intersectionality and Beyond: Law, Power and the Politics of Location 21–48 (Emily Grabham et al. eds., 2008).Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Jonas Malmberg, The Collective Agreement as an Instrument for Regulation of Wages and Employment Conditions, in Stability and change in Nordic labour law 189–213 (Peter Wahlgren ed., 2002).Google Scholar

²¹⁹ Mulder, supra note 21, chapter 3.Google Scholar

²²⁰ As advocated by Frankenberg. See Frankenberg, supra note 24, at 441.Google Scholar

²²¹ Legrand, supra note 54.Google Scholar

²²² Pierre Legrand, Citing Foreign Law: How Derrida can help, 21 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 595–629, 614–619 (2011).Google Scholar

²²³ Legrand, supra note 54, at 707.Google Scholar

²²⁴ The implementation of EU directives has often been viewed through the lens of a legal transplant analysis. This is sensible since directives may introduce new, foreign legal concepts into national law. These concepts can than irritate the legal system. Gunther Teubner, Legal Irritants: Good Faith in British Law or How Unifying Law Ends up in New Divergences, 61 Mod. L. Rev 11–32 (1998). But there are also clear differences between EU directives and classic legal transplants in the Watsonian sense. See Watson, supra note 29. After all, Member States consent to the supranational law making and participate in it.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 228.Google Scholar

²²⁶ Case 43/75, Defrenne v SABENA EU:C:1976:56, 1976 E.C.R. 455, at ¶ 9.Google Scholar

²²⁷ Ellis & Watson, supra note 121, at 25.Google Scholar

²²⁸ Case C-270/97, Sievers EU:C:2000:76, 2000 E.C.R. I-929, at ¶¶ 53-57; 149/77, Defrenne v Sabena EU:C:1978:130, 1978 E.C.R. 1365, at ¶¶ 26–27.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Phil Syrpis, EU Intervention in Domestic Labour Law 10–75 (2007).Google Scholar

²³⁰ Simone Glanert, Method?, in Methods of Comparative law 61, 81 (Pier Giuseppe Monateri ed., 2012).Google Scholar

²³¹ van der Vleuten, supra note 57.Google Scholar

²³² Jürgen Habermas, Citizenship and National Identity 1990, in Between Facts and Norms 491–515 (William Rehg trans., 1996).Google Scholar

²³³ Pillarization (verzuiling) is the term used to describe the Dutch political system in beginning of the 20th century. Pillarization describes the cultural segregation of the state, traditionally divided into Catholic, Protestant, Socialist and Liberal pillar. The presumption is that these groups could mainly act freely within their group but needed to reach consensuses at the top-level. Those agreements reached by the elites were then assumed to permeate down to the lower levels of society, who generally accept the elites' compromises. Presumably, the separation of pillars then ensured a great deal of conformity within the groups but also institutionalised pluralism by ensuring unity despite diversity and accommodating different (religious) lifestyles. Consequently, Dutch society could integrate diverse lifestyles, homosexuality, and new progressive ideologies, despite Christian influences on politics. This understanding of Dutch society is important, because, although the Pillarization Theory has been challenged in recent years it influenced how (political) identity was perceived as self-evident and continues to influence national identity, social consciousness and political processes. Mulder, supra note 21; Niek vas Sas, The Netherlands, in 5 Dutch Culture in a European Perspective 41 (D. Fokkema & F. Grijzenhout eds., 2004); Arend Lijphart, Verzuiling, pacificatie en Kentering in de Nederlandse politiek 13 (3rd ed. 1979); Kees Schuyt, Tolerance and Democracy, in 5 Dutch Culture in a European Perspective 113 (D. Fokkema & F. Grijzenhout eds., 2004); Jet Bussemaker, Gender and the Separation of Spheres in Twentieth Century Dutch Society, in Gender, Participation and Citizenship in the Netherlands 28–29 (Jet Bussemaker & Rian Voet eds., 1998); Peter van Dam, Staat van Verzuiling (2011); Harm Kaal, Appealing to the Female Vote, 23 Women's Hist. Rev. 1-33 (2014).Google Scholar

²³⁴ Kees Schuyt, Tolerance and Democracy, in 5 Dutch Culture in a European Perspective 113 (D. Fokkema & F. Grijzenhout eds., 2004).Google Scholar

²³⁵ Dagmar Schiek, Gleichberechtigungsrichtlinien der EU-Umsetzung im deutschen Arbeitsrecht, 21 Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht [NZA] 873, 878 (2004).Google Scholar

²³⁶ Article 7:611 Dutch Civil Code.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Hoge Raad der Nederlanden [HR] [Supreme Court of the Netherlands], April 08, 1994, ECLI:NL:HR:1994:ZC1322, JAR 1994, 94, at ¶¶ 3.4-3.5 (Agfa-decision).Google Scholar

²³⁸ Article 6 German Constitution.Google Scholar

²³⁹ Schiek et al., supra note 4, at 17–19.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 228.Google Scholar

²⁴¹ Silbey, supra note 190.Google Scholar

²⁴² van der Vleuten, supra note 216, at 464-88.Google Scholar

²⁴³ Mulder, supra note 21, chapter 4.Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ Id. Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ See text surrounding supra note 59.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Sacco, supra note 157, at 23–24.Google Scholar

²⁴⁷ Kammerstukken II, 2001/2002, 28187, no 1-2; 2002/2003, 28770, nr A, 13; Gerards, Janneke H., Implementation of the Article 13 Directives in Dutch Equal Treatment Legislation, 13 Maastricht J. 291, 301–303 (2006).Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ Rikki Holtmaat, Stop de inflatie van het discriminatiebegrip!, 78 Nederlands Juristenblad [NJB] 1266-1276 (2003); Klaus Adomeit, Diskriminierung - Inflation eines Begriffs, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 1622 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ Bob Hepple, Race and Law in Fortress Europe, 67 Mod. L. Rev. 1-15 (2004); van der Vleuten, supra note 57.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz [AGG] [General Equal Treatment Act], legislative proposal, BT Drs [Papers of the German Parliament]16/1780 (08.06.2006); final bill (2006) BGBl [Federal Gazette] I Nr. 39, 1897, available at: http://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/publikationen/agg_in_englischer_Sprache.pdf?__blob=publicationFile; Susanne Hoentzsch, Discrimination in Individual-Related Employment –A View from Europe and Germany to Canada, analyzing the Requirements and the Background of the European Anti-Discrimination Directives, 7(10) German. L. J. 795–864 (2006); Joachim Wiemann, Obligation to Contract and the German General Acton Equal Treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz), 11(10) German L. J. 1131-1146 (2010).Google Scholar

²⁵¹ See text around supra note 203; Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 117–161.Google Scholar

²⁵² Id. at 161.Google Scholar

²⁵³ Id. at 162.Google Scholar

²⁵⁴ Legrand, supra note 15, at 60–64.Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ Reinmann, supra note 2, at 675.Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ Frankenberg, supra note 23, at 228.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ Case C-109/00, Tele Danmark EU:C:2001:513, 2001 E.C.R. I-6993; C-438/99, Jiménez Melgar EU:C:2001:509, 2001 E.C.R. I-6915.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ Dekker, supra note 201.Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ Kilpatrick, supra note 105.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ Case C-399/92, Stadt Lengerich and Others v Helmig and Others EU:C:1994:415, 1994 E.C.R. I-5727; C-300/06, Voß EU:C:2007:757, 2007 E.C.R. I-10573; C-285/02, Elsner-Lakeberg EU:C:2004:320, 2004 E.C.R. I-5861.Google Scholar

²⁶¹ See supra heading C.Google Scholar

²⁶² McKenna, supra note 202; Jule Mulder, Pregnancy Discrimination in the National Courts: Is There a Common EU Framework?, 31 Int'l Comp. Lab. L. 67–90 (2015).Google Scholar

²⁶³ The Federal German Labor courts only sent a preliminary ruling regarding this interpretation of the equality directives in 2015: Case C-423/15, Kratzer EU:C:2016:604 (31 July 2015).Google Scholar

²⁶⁴ Tobias Lock, Religious Freedom and Belief Discrimination in Germany and the United Kingdom: Towards a Common European Standard?, 38 Eur. L. Rev. 655–676 (2013).Google Scholar

²⁶⁵ Kirsten Scheiwe, Was ist ein funktionales Äquivalent in der Rechtsvergleichung?, 83 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft [KritV] 30, 33–34 (2000).Google Scholar

²⁶⁶ Blankenburg, supra note 189.Google Scholar

²⁶⁷ Mathias Siems, The End of Comparative Law, 2(2) J. Comp. L. 133, 145 (2007).Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ Kilpatrick, supra note 105.Google Scholar

²⁶⁹ See Ammer, Christine, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (1997) (arguing that the metaphor originally referred to “apples and oysters,” which much more clearly highlights the problem of dissimilarity).Google Scholar

²⁷⁰ Glenn, supra note 19, at 45 (rejecting the incommensurability).Google Scholar

²⁷¹ siems, supra note 267, at 145.Google Scholar

²⁷² Platsas, supra note 49, at 6–7.Google Scholar

²⁷³ Örücü, supra note 49, at 571.Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ Glanert, supra note 230.Google Scholar

²⁷⁵ Schiek, supra note 22, at 218.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ See supra heading B.Google Scholar

²⁷⁷ Art 267 TFEU.Google Scholar

²⁷⁸ Hesselink, supra note 32, at 40.Google Scholar

²⁷⁹ Glenn, supra note 19, at 34–35, 361–85.Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea 502–5 (1996); Hesselink, supra note 2, at 32.Google Scholar

²⁸¹ Glenn, supra note 19, at 361.Google Scholar

²⁸² Bernard Williams, Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy 139 (1985).Google Scholar

²⁸³ Dennett, supra note 280, at 501–5Google Scholar

²⁸⁴ Cotterrell, supra note 13, at 133,151.Google Scholar

²⁸⁵ Jaakko Husa, Research Design of Comparative Law –Methodology or Heuristics?, in The Method and Culture of Comparative Law 53–68 (Maurice Adams & Dirk Heirbaut eds., 2014).Google Scholar

²⁸⁶ Frankenberg, supra note 214, at 260.Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Gary Watt, Comparing as deep appreciation, in Methods of Comparative law 82, 84–85 (Pier Giuseppe Monateri ed., 2012).Google Scholar

²⁸⁸ Geoffrey Samuel, Taking Methods Seriously (Part One), 2 J. Comp. L. 94, 105–8 (2007).Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ Id. at 99.Google Scholar