The General Principle of the Prohibition of Abuse of Rights: A Critical Position on Its Role in a Codified European Contract Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The principle of prohibition of abuse of rights aims to correct the application of a rule of law on the basis of standards such as good faith, fairness, and justice if, despite formal observance of the conditions of the rule, the objective of that rule has not been achieved. This principle amounts to a general principle of Union law. First, a common concept of abuse of rights exists in the legal traditions of the Member States. Second, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gradually built a Union concept of abuse of rights ( Emsland-Stärke, Halifax, Kofoed ). However, the general principle of prohibition of abuse of rights is not expressly incorporated into the codification projects on European contract law. This principle constitutes a specific application of the general duty of good faith and fair dealing in its limitative function. In principle, this approach is valid, more specifically from the perspective of the Civil Law traditions where the prohibition of abuse of rights is likewise considered as one of the applications of the more general and autonomous limitative function of good faith (e.g., Germany and the Netherlands). However, an express incorporation of the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights would be advisable from the perspective of the Civil Law traditions where the limitative function of good faith is not autonomous but exclusively linked to the general principle prohibiting the abuse of rights (e.g., Belgium and France). Such an incorporation would be in line with the recognition of a general principle of Union law prohibiting the abuse of rights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".