An analytical essay on comparative legal structures in family and administrative cases
by Evangelos Trimmis — Jurist & Comparative Case Analyst
Legal systems differ not only in their rules and procedures but in their understanding of time.
This difference often remains invisible as long as a case unfolds within a single national legal culture.
Once a case crosses borders – especially in family or administrative law – this divergence becomes unmistakable:
one system proceeds step by step, verifying every formal requirement;
the other begins from the intended result, reconstructing the necessary steps backward.
Two logics meet:
the documentation logic
and the result consistency logic.
I. Documentation Logic: The Linear Order of Administration
Administrative law in Germany follows a linear model of time:
Each step enables the next.
First A, then B, then C.
Each step requires:
- a clearly defined competence,
- a valid form,
- and a verifiable record.
A procedure is correct when:
- The competent authority acted.
- The prescribed form was observed.
- The documentation is complete.
The result is valid because the path was valid.
In most domestic cases this model is efficient, fair, and transparent.
But it presupposes one thing often absent in international cases:
that all relevant documents already exist and are mutually compatible.
II. Result Consistency: The Teleological Model of International Legal Space
Many other legal systems – including Greece, Albania, Italy, Spain, and much of the Balkans – operate with a teleological understanding of time:
The procedure unfolds from the goal outward.
The question is not:
“Was the correct form observed?”
But rather:
“What is the right outcome in this concrete case?”
Only once the just outcome is clear does one determine which procedural steps are needed.
Here, procedure serves the purpose of justice, not its sequence.
The result is valid because it is just and coherent.
Form exists to make the result visible – not to obstruct it.
III. When Both Logics Collide
In international family and administrative cases, the following structure often emerges:
| German Documentation Logic | Teleological Result Consistency |
|---|---|
| “Show the documents, and we will examine your claim.” | “The claim arises from the facts; the documents will be produced afterward.” |
| The path legitimizes the outcome. | The outcome legitimizes the path. |
| Time is linear (A → B → C). | Time is reconstructive (C → A). |
The consequence is immobility, not dispute.
Not because anyone is wrong,
but because both sides assume different temporal foundations for law.
IV. The Solution Lies Not in Opposition but in Translation
Such cases cannot be solved by escalation or acceleration.
They are resolved through translation:
- First, define the legally coherent result.
- Then, determine which jurisdiction must recognize it.
- Finally, produce or adapt the documentation accordingly.
This does not mean ignoring form.
It means placing form in service of law, not above it.
V. The Essential Question
Does procedure follow life — or does life follow procedure?
This question determines whether a legal system processes complexity or repels it.
Where a procedure has no time,
the law must rediscover another kind of time:
the time of reconstruction
and the time of equity — Aristotle’s epieikeia in practice.