Though Company Laws of the United States and Germany have much in common, they are opposite in many important ways. While the Anglo-Saxon Law derives from Common Law, German Law has its origin in the Civil Law.

La Porta et al. are not the only ones highlighting that the quality of shareholder protection varies across different jurisdictions depending on which legal system family the jurisdiction belongs. Pistor and Siems went a step further, highlighting that variations in market systems are explainable by more fundamental factors than law, like differences in the underlying ground rules.

Whether patents should be granted on human genes or gene sequences is highly controversial, both ethically and politically; not only in Germany but throughout Europe and in most parts of the world. Proof of this has been the attention created by US biotechnology company Myriad Genetics, which, in 2001, obtained European patents for human gene sequences indicating an increased risk of certain types of cancer. In Germany the Bundestag has recently addressed the issue: the core of a newly introduced provision of the German Patent Statute (PatG) is Paragraph 1a Sec. 4 PatG, which limits the scope of patent protection available for human gene sequences or parts thereof. If the subject of an invention is a human gene sequence, Paragraph 1a Sec. 4 PatG requires disclosure of not only the sequence but also at least one application. Without such disclosure a human gene sequence is not patentable under German Patent Law. This is remarkable, because under the Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, the so-called Biotechnology Directive of 1998, a piece of European Union legislation, the situation is different.

Despite never-ending discussion and innumerable reforms, the German system of legal education still has as its objective the so-called Einheitsjurist. This being a German specialty, it is almost impossible to find an English expression for it. One might try the translation “uniform jurist.” To qualify as an Einheitsjurist, every law student must go through the same legal education no matter which of the classical juridical professions he or she wants to pursue. To be admitted to the Bar, the same formal qualification is required as for the admission to the Bench. In both cases you have to pass the “second state exam.”

On the 3rd of May 2005, the ECJ gave judgment in the Silvio Berlusconi and Others case dealing with the provisions of the First (D68/151/EEC), Fourth (D78/660/EEC) and Seventh (D83/349/EEC) Companies Directives and the transposing Italian national provisions. The case is a preliminary ruling referred to the ECJ by several Italian courts (Tribunale di Milano, Corte d'Appello di Lecce) on the basis of Art.234 EC Treaty. It has been decided by the Grand Chamber of the ECJ, which is quite indicative of a significant judgment. Furthermore, the Grand Chamber did not follow the opinion of the Advocate General Kokott. Finally, it is interesting to note that no other government except the Italian Government contributed to the case. This last fact seems very strange having regard to the highly sensitive issue. Indeed the decision deals with the criminal sanctions for false accounting.