part vi • european legal integration • nina-louisa arold lorenz experience – revealed a surprising unanimity. Judgements were then categorized according to subject matter to see whether patterns of dissent and background would emerge when specific subject matter is raised. The results were an almost balanced outcome when looking at legal families connected to voting behaviour. There was a subtle variation in voting behaviour depending on the former historical-political context. The results showed that some variations between Eastern and Western judges could be traced in ECHR Art. 10 cases concerning in defamation in the press (dissent by Western judges in four out of twelve cases), and inECHR Art. 8 cases about custody (dissent by Eastern judges in eight cases out of eleven).56 Given the relatively small number of actual votes this result cannot be generalized. In cases invoking ECHR Art. 9 the voting behaviour between Eastern and Western judges was almost balanced. When looking at the connection between vocation and voting behaviour, a handful of sample cases show variations in argumentation.57 The main divide was whether judicial maximalism or minimalism was applied to a case. In other words, should the bench attach wider importance to the case, or should they focus on the legal issues of the coherence of precedence, but without necessarily linking it to further implementations intended to develop the law? At theCJEU, too, ageneral tension between judicial maximalism and minimalism can be seen in the case law.58 It is increasingly evident that philosophy, myths, and ancient history are extensively used in legal arguments, especially by members of bench when dissenting from the majority. This phenomenon of alternative sources points to another layer beyond the law: a common European cultural heritage. Such alternative sources serve as interesting vehicles to support legal claims.59 A short systematic analysis of the term ‘philoso56 See Arold 2007, 109, 104. 57 Ibid., ch. 5 at 110 ff. 58 See Arold Lorenz et al. 2013, 284 ff. 59 Some findings have been published in Nina-Louisa Arold, ‘No court is an island: Philosophy at the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice’, in Bar312 Alternative sources
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=