Comparing inside European institutions

The discussion is led by Eszter Bodnár. 

Registration is available here.

The event is supported by Hubert Curien – Balaton grant and is organized in the framework of the project “Comparative Law in Constitutional Adjudication in France and Hungary”.

Abstract
Legal comparativism is rapidly becoming an essential tool for state institutions to navigate the increasingly globalized world. Both courts and parliaments are relying on comparative law to find existing solutions and establish the legitimacy of their decisions, especially in sensitive domains.
While many studies have addressed the normative questions surrounding legal comparison by institutions, such as the reasons for comparing and the normative significance of the comparative argument, few have delved into the specific ways in which this comparison is carried out within the institutions. This paper aims to address that gap by examining various aspects of the comparative process inside institutions in Europe. It will explore factors such as who is responsible for conducting comparative studies, the origin of the demand for comparison, the countries examined, the level of publicity given to comparative research, and the methodologies employed.
The paper's main goal is to compare the practices of legal comparison in European national and supranational institutions. It will analyze the approaches of apex courts and parliaments in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, as well as the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. By comparing these comparative law practices, the study aims to identify both significant obstacles and potential best practices.