When Interessenjurisprudenz distanced itself from a decision of the Supreme Court (answering the catastrophe of Weimar's Germany hyperinflation )

 In November 1923, Germany's Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) faced an impossible choice. The nation's hyperinflation had just ended, but it left behind a legal catastrophe. Emergency laws passed in 1914 to finance World War I by borrowing had established a "forced exchange rate" requiring creditors to accept paper marks at face value, regardless of devaluation. Between 1914 and 1923, the German mark collapsed from a stable currency to worthless paper, with 4.2 trillion marks per US dollar by the end. A loaf of bread cost 160 marks in late 1922 but 200 billion marks a year later. The middle class was destroyed.  Creditors who had lent in good faith faced total ruin.

On November 28, 1923, the Reichsgericht ruled that mortgage creditors were entitled to "revaluation"—payment calculated in gold mark values rather than worthless paper. The Court based its decision on Article 242 of the German Civil Code, which requires good faith (Treu und Glauben). The Court argued that, correctly interpreted, the 1914 monetary laws never intended such extreme consequences and that good-faith principles prevented debtors from exploiting devaluation to evade absolute obligations.

Philipp Heck, founder of the doctrine of interests (Interessenjurisprudenz), offered his own variant of a decision after a devastating critique. While acknowledging revaluation as "an ethical imperative," Heck argued the Court's decision rested on erroneous historical interpretation, misapplied good faith principles, and exceeded judicial authority. 

This controversy raised fundamental questions about legal method still relevant today: Can courts use general principles to override clear legislative commands? Should changed circumstances trigger judicial reinterpretation or require legislative reform? What are the limits of judicial power during crises?

Based on a presentation I gave at a Conference held on 24-25 October in Craiova, Romania, I developed a paper that addresses all the above problems. The English variant of the paper under the title: "The German Supreme Court Confronts Catastrophe and the Limits of Judicial Power: Analyzing the 1923 Reichsgericht Revaluation Decision, the Doctrinal Arguments, and Philipp Heck's Critique". The paper is visible at:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5907123