suum cuique tribuere 316 instance by the sovereign and the state parliament (Landtag) as District Court, where only oral proceedings were customary. So appellants could present neither acta prioranor a written sentence, which would have been strictly necessary for the enforcement of the procedure. So the traditional oral proceedings of the first instance could not be a basis of appeal. This is only an example for the necessity of further discussions about the problem how to handle and interpret the formality of the learned procedural law. The question must be put once again how parties could formally realize an appeal without the help of jurists when at the first hearing it was necessary to bring an appeal or a written justification for appeal. It seems to me that we must have a more intensive look at the problem of how an administration of justice practicing learned law could work without any jurists. I am thankful for Professor Diestelkamp’s extremely interesting comments, from which I have learned a lot. The fact that leuterationas a term is found in the practice of the Imperial Chamber Court is, as far as I know, a completely new finding, which merits attention. I want to congratulate Prof. Diestelkamp for this. I think this is also an interesting case of an early modern legal transplant from Germany to Sweden. Here we are dealing with a typical legal transplant in that the institution was changed – in fact radically – while transplanted to the new procedural environment. What remains of the original is the idea of correcting acourt decision, but not much more. The greatest difference between the German and SwedishLeuterationis that in Sweden the institution only came to be used in criminal cases. In the leuteration procedure, a criminal sentence could be changed to become either harsher or more lenient than the original sentence. The material reasons for leuteration developed in the appeals court practice. The second difference is that it was always the appeals court, (hovrätt) that reA reply to Professor Bernhard Diestelkamp’s intervention Professor Heikki Pihlajamäki, Helsinki
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=