Business law in management theses, tax law in accounting papers, compliance topics in econ, full law school assignments — the moment your source is a statute, regulation, or court ruling, the citation rules change. Most style guides cover them only in passing, and no single guide handles them systematically. This post collects the rules per jurisdiction, with concrete examples and the mistakes that reliably get flagged.
Why statutes are cited differently
A statute isn’t an author’s intellectual creation. There’s no publisher and no publication year in the usual sense. Instead you cite a provision (e.g. § 433 BGB in Germany, Art. 18 OR in Switzerland, or 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in the United States) in a specific version. Citing a statute like a book (“Ministry of Justice, 2023”) tells the examiner: never read a legal paper.
Two principles you can’t break:
- In the text the reference appears inline — usually in brackets or a footnote, almost never in the bibliography.
- The version has to be visible whenever the provision has been amended or could still change. “BGB as amended on 01.01.2024” or the official gazette with its citation.
German law: § and Abs. and Satz
The most common case in German-language theses. You cite a provision with § (or Art. for constitutional and EU law), paragraph, sentence, number.
§ 433 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB
The order is always § → Abs. → S. → Nr., separated by spaces, with the statute’s abbreviation at the end. For multiple provisions, separate with commas:
§§ 433, 434 BGB
For a range:
§§ 433 ff. BGB (433 and the following ones) f. = one following, ff. = two or more following
Constitution and Basic Law
For the German Basic Law (GG) and constitutions, it’s Art. instead of §:
Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG Art. 14 Abs. 2 GG
Which version?
If you cite the current provision, the plain reference is enough. If you refer to a previous version (e.g. because a ruling interprets it), flag it:
§ 651 BGB a. F. (old version) § 312 BGB n. F. (new version, post-2022 reform)
If your topic is the reform itself, drop the gazette citation into the footnote:
§ 312k BGB as enacted by the Act of 10 August 2021, BGBl. I p. 3433.
Swiss law: OR, ZGB, BV
Switzerland uses Art., never §:
Art. 18 Abs. 1 OR Art. 2 Abs. 2 ZGB Art. 8 BV
The Systematic Compilation (SR) has a classification number — only needed for obscure ordinances; for the major codes you skip it. For revisions, cite the Federal Gazette: BBl 2023 1234.
US law: U.S.C., C.F.R., state codes
The two most common forms in US legal writing:
- United States Code:
28 U.S.C. § 1331— title, code, section. - Code of Federal Regulations:
17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
State statutes follow each state’s own convention — California, for instance: Cal. Civ. Code § 1542. The Bluebook (the dominant US legal citation guide) covers these in detail.
UK law: short title, year, section
UK statutes are cited by short title, year, and section:
Human Rights Act 1998, s 6(1) Companies Act 2006, ss 170–177
Note: no comma between the short title and year, and s (no dot) for section. Subsections in round brackets without Subs..
EU law: Regulation, Directive, Treaty
For EU law, you cite the legal act first, then the article, then the official journal — full at first mention, then abbreviated.
First citation of a regulation:
Art. 6(1)(a) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
Subsequent citations:
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Directives follow the same scheme. The treaties (TEU, TFEU) are cited with Art. and the treaty abbreviation:
Art. 267 TFEU
Citing court rulings — the real problem
While statutes are relatively stable, case citations are where most theses fall apart. The basic rule: court, date, docket number, official citation.
German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG)
The official reporter is BVerfGE. Format: volume, first page (specific page):
BVerfGE 152, 152 (175) — Right to be Forgotten I
If the ruling isn’t yet in the official reporter:
BVerfG, Urt. v. 06.11.2019 — 1 BvR 16/13, NJW 2020, 300.
German Federal Court of Justice (BGH)
Official reporters: BGHZ (civil) and BGHSt (criminal):
BGHZ 217, 110 (118) BGHSt 65, 80 (84)
Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ)
Since 2014 the ECJ cites itself with the ECLI (European Case Law Identifier):
ECJ, judgment of 13.05.2014 — C-131/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317 — Google Spain.
The old reporter citation (Slg./ECR) has been dropped for newer rulings; for older ones it’s still correct: [2003] ECR I-12519.
Swiss Federal Supreme Court
The official reporter is BGE. Format: volume (Roman), page:
BGE 144 III 145 E. 3.2 S. 148
E. stands for Erwägung — the specific reasoning paragraph. Citing the whole judgment without naming an Erwägung signals: only read the headnote.
US Supreme Court
Use the official reporter (U.S.), or where unavailable, S. Ct. or L. Ed.:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022)
Format: party names, volume reporter first page, pinpoint page (year).
UK case law
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
Brackets indicate the year of the report; (HL) or [UKSC] identifies the court.
Reading docket numbers
A BGH docket like V ZR 152/22 decodes as: V = senate, ZR = civil, 152/22 = running number/year. BVerfG uses 1 BvR (First Senate, constitutional complaint). Each court has its own logic — when unsure, check the database’s explanatory note, don’t guess.
Commentaries and treatises
In law papers you almost never cite a provision without the corresponding commentary entry. The formula: author of the section, in: commentary, edition year, provision marginal number.
Grüneberg, in: Grüneberg, BGB, 83rd ed. 2024, § 433 Rn. 5.
For multi-author commentaries, name the contributor, not the editor:
Faust, in: BeckOK BGB, status 01.02.2024, § 433 Rn. 12.
Rn. stands for Randnummer (marginal number) — the granular reference within a commentary. Page numbers are rarely used in commentaries.
In US legal writing the equivalent is the treatise citation: Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2024).
The typical mistakes
1. URL instead of docket number. A footnote that contains only https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/... is not a legal citation. Docket number and date are mandatory.
2. Wrong order of elements. § 1 BGB Abs. 2 is wrong. Correct: § 1 Abs. 2 BGB.
3. ff. and f. mixed up. f. = one following, ff. = several following. § 433 f. BGB covers § 433 and § 434; § 433 ff. BGB covers § 433 and at least two more.
4. Missing pinpoint. A US case cite without a pinpoint page (410 U.S. 113 instead of 410 U.S. 113, 153) is incomplete for any substantive claim. Same for Erwägung in BGE and paragraph number in ECJ rulings.
5. Creative use of “i. V. m.” / “read with”. Linking two provisions (§ 280 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 241 Abs. 2 BGB) means they apply jointly. Using the link because two provisions are “thematically similar” without combining them legally is a substantive error, not just a citation slip.
6. Outdated commentary edition. Citing the 2018 Palandt when the 83rd edition (Grüneberg) is available in 2024 marks you as a sloppy researcher.
Databases and tools
For legal work you need access to at least one major database. Germany: juris, beck-online. Austria: RDB, RIS (free, official). Switzerland: Swisslex, bger.ch for full texts. EU: EUR-Lex (free, official) and Curia for ECJ rulings. US: Westlaw, LexisNexis, Bloomberg Law. UK: Westlaw UK, BAILII (free).
Docket numbers, ECLI, and official citations live there reliably — and that’s exactly what you have to cite. Skip secondary sources like Google hits or blog posts as authority.
How Acurio verifies legal references
When your paper contains a hundred case and commentary citations, end-of-thesis verification against the originals takes longer than writing the conclusion. That’s the most expensive failure mode in legal writing: a commentary author says the opposite of what you claim, and in the oral exam the examiner pulls exactly that passage.
Acurio reads your sources alongside the text. Whether the footnote points to a commentary, a ruling, or a regulation: Acurio checks whether the statement in your text matches the statement at the cited passage. The form of your citations (§ 433 Abs. 1 BGB or § 433 I BGB) stays your call — the substantive accuracy is what the tool covers. You catch false citations before the second examiner does.
Pre-submission checklist
- Every provision in the correct format? § / Art., Abs., Satz, Nr., statute abbreviation — in that order.
- Rulings cited with docket number or official reporter? No bare URLs.
- Pinpoint or marginal number given? Mandatory for BGE, ECJ, and US Supreme Court cites.
- Commentaries with contributor and edition? Not just the editor’s name.
- Current version used? For reformed provisions, mark “a. F.” / “n. F.” (old / new version).
- Content verified? Does the cited passage actually say what you claim. Acurio handles this step.
Cite statutes and rulings cleanly, and the first footnote signals you know the craft. Cite them cleanly and accurately, and you win the grade where others lose points to format slips and substantive errors.