.bq under Napoleonic law, these would be written down in a law, and if they weren’t, then the previous judges decisions would bear no significant weight on an upcoming decision as the previous decisions are not considered precedent law.
That is not really so clear-cut as lower courts will tend to issue judgements that are aligned with jurisprudence in order to avoid an excess of appeals.
In some countries like France – that took a while to reform and modernise their body of laws – jurisprudence was / is an important tool to adapt & apply 1800es vintage formulations and economic concepts to modern practices.
So while in theory legal practitioners recoil at the idea of jurisprudence carrying any sort of weight under a Napoleonic regime, in actual practice it does, and together with doctrine is one of the sources of law reform.
The comment, often repeated, that Napoleonic Law prohibits everything unless specifically allowed, is just wrong. It’s is often said, and we can debate examples all day long, but it’s still wrong.
Can you find a law in France that says I’m allowed to scratch my face when it’s itchy? Can’t find it? Is it illegal because there is no law saying it’s allowed? No, it isn’t.
Can you find a law in Germany that says I’m allowed to greet an old friend I meet in the street, using the English language? Can’t find it? Is it illegal because there is no law saying it’s allowed? No, it isn’t.
The difference between common law and Napoleonic law comes down to the ability of the judiciary to create laws that aren’t written down.
Under common law judges make decisions, and they become precedents and are a form of law themselves. Subsequent decisions in the same level or lower courts, must follow these precedents unless the circumstances are different. In times gone by, these could be decisions in areas where no law existed, but in more modern times it’s more about a judge reading between the lines and interpreting law. (Note that often decisions by a court of a certain low level are not considered precedents).
While under Napoleonic law, judges precedents carry much less weight. A judge looks at the law that is written down (codified) and isn’t bound by a previous decision or interpretation.
An example of common law precedent, that I’m familiar with is the area of tax law dealing with whether a person is self employed or an employee. The distinction between being self employed or an employee carries a lot of implications in Ireland (different obligations to submit tax returns, different expenses with can be claimed, different tax credits available, different social welfare entitlements) but yet we have no law written down setting out how to decide whether someone is self employed or an employee. We don’t even have a law stating what factors are to be taken into account. Instead the judges are bound by centuries of precedents of previous judges setting out which factors they are taking into account and how much weight they are giving to each factor.
Under Napoleonic law, these would be written down in a law, and if they weren’t, then the previous judges decisions would bear no significant weight on an upcoming decision as the previous decisions are not considered precedent law.
mh wrote:
It’s possible in Denmark, also.
Yes, and in Sweden — even without permission. I don’t see that this is a common law/statutory law issue at all.
In France, for Microlights, one can land anywhere off-airport as long as they have owner permission and they judged the phyiscs adds up (20m*200m ??), on public space it require “Mayor notification” for landing & takeoff, regular usage require persmission, in the other hand landing/takeoff in public controlled airports or CAS transits may require “ATC permission” in addition to clearances, also one can fly microlight to any uncontrolled Aliports with no MOU rating if they wish while flying bellow FL115 (or get the 6months site or 2 years checkout/refersher in a local SEP rather than driving their car or hiring another pilot 
)
For Aeroplanes, any off airport takeoff require “Mayor permission” and also subject to ATC/Police/Customs clearances
https://www.codes-et-lois.fr/code-de-l-aviation-civile/toc-aeronefs-circulation-aeronefs-atterrissage-atterrissage-dec-e42f79b-texte-integral
For Cub or STOL flyers worth joining here where everything is organised to land on the beach, including customs at Abbeville
https://www.piperclubfrance.com/decouvrez-les-photos-du-rassemblement-du-crotoy/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124963330@N02/sets/72157695129269690/
Of course this is French national law not EASA law…
Off_Field wrote:
But Ireland is common-law based
It’s possible in Denmark, also.
But Ireland is common-law based
Graham wrote:
In EASA-land you may not land an aeroplane anywhere that has not been approved for the purpose by the regulator.
Ireland is part of EASA, and you can land anywhere with the land owners permission.
It’s nothing to do with EASA.
OT posts moved to the OT/politics thread.
Graham wrote:
I think the basic differing principles have been established, have they not?In EASA-land you may not land an aeroplane anywhere that has not been approved for the purpose by the regulator.
No, because that’s incorrect. EASA regulations say nothing about land use rights, only about the suitability of purpose for a takeoff/landing area.
E.g. in Sweden, which is certainly part of EASA-land, you can make occasional landings and takeoffs anywhere without the landowner’s permission as long as you don’t cause any damage or major disturbance. In densely populated areas you have to discuss with the police, but nothing is said about needing a permission. There are exceptions, of course, like nature reserves.
