Skip to main content Skip to search
Send us a mail
analysisoflaws@gmail.com

Definitions

Definitions

(1) LITERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

The literal rule of interpretation is the primary rule. Under this rule of interpretation, the Courts interpret the statutes in a literal and ordinary sense. They interpret the words of the statute in a way that is used commonly by all. It is incumbent on the court to use the grammatical meaning;

The literal rule of interpretation really means that there should be no interpretation. In other words, we should read the statute as it is, without distorting or twisting its language. This rule is the most widely used Rule of Interpretation for the statutes to ascertain the legislative intention behind the framing of the enactment.

(2) CONTEXTUAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

It is obvious that legal acts shall be executed as legislators intended them to be. But it’s not always clear that only one result can derive by interpreting a statute. Actually, it is rare that a norm can only have one meaning (plain and explicit). The text itself is capable of more than one sensible content. This actually poses a great threat towards the legal certainty because in order for a statute to be implied, it has to be minimized to a single, but yet complete meaning;

This being the case in every single legal system in the world, it is not hard to imagine that the ECJ’s task to imply the EU Law within the Member States is far more difficult since it has to overcome severe interpretation barriers such as different languages and legal systems;

Contextual interpretation is a form of statutory interpretation widely used by the ECJ to override these types of problems. It is aimed on finding the correct and accurate meaning of a norm in accordance with the general framework it belongs in, or better: “involves placing the provision in issue within its context and interpreting it in relation to other provisions” of the EU law. In other words, according to the Contextual interpretation a statute should not be perceived as a single abstract but as an integral part of an organic whole

The graphic example is Commonwealth v. Bralley case which took place in one of the US courts, nevertheless, might help to understand general idea of contextual interpretation. The statute provided that “no person shall be allowed to be a manufacturer of any spirituous or intoxicating liquors for sale, or a common seller thereof, without being duly appointed or authorized. The controversy was about the word thereof. It meant “of liquors manufactured by the defendant” whereas the defendant insisted that the statute prohibited only manufacturers from selling or being common sellers of liquor. In such case only context from another clause of the section clarified that not only manufacturers but all persons were prohibited from selling liquor without authorization. Here the contextual meaning is the proper one because the literal meaning does not harmonize with another part of the statute. (Article by Professor of Law, New York University, School of Law; Frederick J. De Sloovere, “Contextual Interpretation of Statutes”, (1936)