Statutory Interpretation - European Perception

European Perception

Following the German scholar Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861) the four main interpretation methods are:

• Grammatical interpretation: using the literal meaning of the statutory text ("grammatical" is actually the wrong word, but it is commonly used for this trype of interpretation).
• Historical interpretation: using the legislative history, to reveal the intent of the legislator.
• Systematic interpretation: considering the context of provisions, if only by acknowledging in which chapter a provision is listed.
• Teleological interpretation: then the purpose of the law is considered.

It is controversial whether certain interpretation methods must be preferred. Germans prefer a "grammatical" (literal) interpretation, because the statutory text has a democratic legitimation, and "sensible" interpretations are risky, in particular in view of German history. "Sensible" means different things to different people. The common law perception that courts actually make law is very different. All of the above methods seem "logical": it seems frivilous to ignore the literal text, but also to ignore the intent of the legislator, or the system of the statutes. So for instance in Dutch law, NO general priority sequence for the above methods is recognised. It should be noted that the freedom of interpretation largely varies by area of law. Criminal law and tax law must be interpreted very strictly, and never to the disadvantage of citizens, but liability law sometimes is even interpreted contra legem, because here (usually) both parties are citizens.