Numerus clausus (law)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numerus clausus (from the Latin numerus 'number', 'number' and clausus 'closed') denotes a final number of legal forms in jurisprudence . It is a general characteristic of absolute rights . In terms of content and type, the real authorizations are finally standardized by law or customary law. The numerus clausus principle is not explicitly mentioned in the law, but it is the basis of the relevant provisions.

The complete presentation of property law goes back to the Roman jurist Gaius in the 2nd century AD. The approach became generally accepted with the pandemic law of the 19th century. A numerus clausus serves the purpose of legal users of legal clarity in legal transactions by reducing the content-related freedom of design to a manageable number via the limited scope of legal forms. Legal traffic is to be protected against accidental violations of the law based on ignorance of the scope of protection. Since property rights work against any third party, they must, as real rights ( leges in rem ) , comply with a limited number of standardized forms, i.e. a numerus clausus , in order to be observed by everyone . It should be emphasized that the numerus clausus principle is not a superordinate “constitutional” legal clause. If the discussion is whether the canon of property rights should be expanded by the legislature based on Article 14.1 sentence 2 of the Basic Law , an appeal to the numerus clausus principle will fail.

Property law

In property law there is only one number of real rights, defined by the legislator, with content and restrictions stipulated by simple law ( mandatory type ). The legal positions listed in the third book of the BGB may not be expanded by the parties. There is no freedom of design, based on the principle that the existing property rights may not be changed, mixed or cumulated in terms of content by those applying the law, or only within narrow limits (type fixation).

Intellectual property law

In the canon of intellectual property rights , the conflict between property rights on the one hand and the exercise of freedom on the other is inevitable. Therefore, according to German and Swiss understanding, the space remaining for the exercise of freedom must be determined by the legislature by simple law. The legal recognition of selected intellectual property rights is based on the legislature's individual weighing up of each legal form between the effort to ensure adequate protection for the right holder and to keep intellectual property free for the general public through the design of the protection requirements and barriers to promote an intellectual development process. These monopoly rights, which are limited in time and content, are opposed to the basic principle of the free right to copy of the general public (the "right to copy") on which our free economic system is ultimately based.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Hans Hermann Seiler : Past and present in civil law , Heymanns, Cologne 2005, ISBN = 978-3-452-25387-3, p. 250.
  2. ↑ Hans Josef Wieling: Property Law - Introduction and Principles . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-37404-6 , p. 3-18 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-540-37404-6_1 .
  3. ↑ Hans-Jürgen Ahrens : Do we need a general part of intellectual property rights? In: GRUR . 2006, p. 617-624, 624 ( uni-osnabrueck.de ).
  4. ^ David Lindsay: The law and economics of copyright, contract and mass market licenses . 2002, ISBN 1-876692-03-0 , pp. 19th f . with reference to
    Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith: Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle . In: YALE LJ Band 110 , 2000, pp. 1 ff . ( ssrn.com ). ,
    Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith: What Happened to Property in Law and Economics? In: YALE LJ Band 111 , 2001 ( ssrn.com ). ,
    Thomas W. Merrill & Henry E. Smith: The Property / Contract Interface . In: Columbia Law Review . tape 101 , 2001, p. 773 ( ssrn.com ). ,
    Richard A. Posner: Economic Analysis of Law . 1998, ISBN 978-0-7355-3474-2 , pp. 76 . and
    Robert P. Merges: The End of Friction? Property Rights and Contract in the "Newtonian" World of On-Line Commerce . In: Berkeley Technology Law Journal . tape 12 , no. 1 , 1997, p. 122 ( ssrn.com ).
  5. ↑ Volker Jänich : Intellectual property: a complementary phenomenon to property ownership? Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2002, ISBN 3-16-147647-6 ( mohr.de ). Page 240 with reference to Raiser, JZ 1961, 465, 467ff
  6. ↑ Jens Thomas Füller: Independent property law? Mohr Siebeck, 2006, ISBN 978-3-16-148993-8 , pp. 14 .
  7. ↑ cf. Jens Thomas Füller: Independent property law? Mohr Siebeck, 2006, ISBN 978-3-16-148993-8 , pp. 370-384 . A Peukert: assignment of goods as a legal principle . Mohr Siebeck, 2008, ISBN 978-3-16-149724-7 . V. Jänich: Intellectual property - a complementary phenomenon to property? Mohr Siebeck, 2002, ISBN 978-3-16-147647-1 . A. Ohly: Is there a numerus clausus for intellectual property rights? FS Schricker. 2005, ISBN 3-406-53501-1 . Ahrens: Do we need a general part of intellectual property rights? In: GRUR . 2006, p.



     617-624 . B. Akkermans: The Principle of Numerus Clausus . In: European Property Law . Intersentia, Antwerp / Oxford / Portland 2008, ISBN 978-90-5095-824-0 . THD Struycken: De Numerus Clausus in het Goederenrecht . Kluwer, 2007, ISBN 978-90-13-04105-7 . contrary to van Raden, Wertenson: Patent protection for services . In: GRUR . 1995, p.


     523-527 .
  8. ↑ cf. Swiss Federal Court: 4A.404 / 2007 "Medicinal Compendium" . In: GRUR Int. 2008, p. 1053-1055 . Swiss Federal Court: 4C.336 / 2004 . In: GRUR Int. 2006, p.
     778-0782 .
  9. ↑ L. David: Is the Numerus Clausus of intellectual property rights still appropriate? In: Current Legal Practice (AJP) . 4th year, 1995 ( online [PDF; 82 kB ; accessed on May 13, 2009]).
  10. ↑ KN Peifer: Individuality in civil law . Mohr Siebeck, 2001, ISBN 978-3-16-147500-9 .
  11. ↑ Psczolla: Virtual objects as objects of the legal order . In: JurPC Web-Doc. 17/2009 . S. Paragraphs 28–30 ( online [accessed May 13, 2009]).
  12. ^ Joren De Wachter: The Return of the Public Domain . ( ipfrontline.com [accessed February 1, 2010]).