像奧地利法和法国法这样相似的两种法律制度,在司法实践中出现分野是不足为奇的。《奧地利民法典》和《法国民法典》的条文都规定得很概括,因而制定法的引导力显得薄弱。故此,立法者并没有全面完成其立法任务:既未确定法的基本价值,亦未明确支撑判决的重要因素,以至于司法仍须担负起基本的价值判断的职能。奧地利和德国损害赔偿法的趋同性反而令人惊讶,尽管两者在法律上的出发点截然不同。虽然奧地利司法试图对宽泛的责任条款加以限制的做法看起来是可以理解的,但是在严格、具体的规定的制约下的德国司法远远地挣脱了《德国民法典)既定的框架,却是出人意料的。由此可得出一个意义重大的法政策上的定律:如果立法者过于限制法院的行动自由。那么最后只会适得其反:法院遍寻突破口,最后会大大削弱制定法对法院的约束力。此外,法院何时根据僵化的事实构成、何时根据一般条款来作出判决,这几乎是不可预测的,如此一来,立法者就绝不可能实现其所追求的法的安定性。因此,这两种使用至今的立法方法都带来了不尽如人意的结果,因为要不然就是没有充分完成指导司法的任务,要不然就是规定得过于严苛。因此,必须寻找一条折中路线。所谓的动态系统论为此提供了唯一可行的选择:鉴于规定的复杂性和待解决事实的多样性,制定出一个符合事实的确定的规则是不可能的。应该通过对法官须予以考虑的关键要素的说明来实现具体化,以此来严格限制法官的裁量权,使其判决具有可预见性;另外,也使得对于纷繁的生活事实的指导性考量成为可能。 It is not surprising that the two legal systems, similar to Austrian and French laws, appear divided in judicial practice. The provisions of the Austrian Civil Code and the French Civil Code are very general provisions, so the guiding force for the enactment of laws is weak. Therefore, the legislator has not fully completed its legislative tasks: it neither determines the basic value of the law nor does it clearly support the important elements of the judgment, so that the judiciary still has to assume the basic role of value judgments. The convergence of the law of damages in Austria and Germany is surprisingly surprising, though the legal starting point is quite different from the two. Although the Austrian judiciary's attempts to limit the broad liability clause seem understandable, German judiciary, which is governed by strict and specific provisions, is far from the established framework of the German Civil Code but surprisingly of. From this we can draw a significant law on the law of law: If the legislator is too restrictive court freedom of movement. Then in the end it would only be counterproductive: the courts searched through the breaches and, in the end, would greatly weaken the statutory binding force on the courts. Moreover, when the courts are based on rigid facts and when judgments are made on general terms is almost unpredictable, legislators will by no means achieve the stability of the law they seek. Therefore, the two methods of legislation that have been used so far have all brought unsatisfactory results, because otherwise the task of guiding the judiciary will not be fully completed or the provisions will be draconian. Therefore, we must find a compromise. The so-called dynamic systems theory offers the only viable option for this: given the complexity of the rules and the diversity of facts to be solved, it is not possible to work out a definitive rule that is fact-based. Materialization should be achieved through the account of key elements to be considered by judges in order to severely limit judges' discretion so that their judgments are predictable; in addition, it makes it possible to guide the assessment of numerous life facts .