While laws in civil law countries are indeed usually more straightforward than in common law countries (that distinction becomes more blurred though anyway with

While laws in civil law countries are indeed usually more straightforward than in common law countries (that distinction becomes more blurred though anyway with common law countries enacting more statutory laws and civil law countries adopting practices from precedence law) they in many case still allow for interpretation. A notable example is the German bankruptcy law, which in theory outlines pretty clear and simple conditions that constitute bankruptcy. In practice, however, determining if and when those conditions are met isn't quite so simple, particularly when it comes to assessing liabilities vs. assets. Legally, a German CEO (Geschäftsführer) is obligated to file for bankruptcy within 3 weeks from knowing that his company has more liabilities than assets, otherwise committing a criminal offence. The result of this assessment is just a snapshot that depends on both the point in time it was taken and on more specific regulations, which aren't part of the law itself and whose interpretation can vary depending on the local jurisdiction. This often results in rather unfortunate situations where a CEO might be held liable for not filing for bankruptcy in time although the actual situation of the company wasn't quite as bad and not filing for bankruptcy was justified at the time. Moreover, a German CEO can be held accountable for not filing for bankruptcy for up to 3 years after the fact, which is often used as leverage to put pressure on the CEO when the company tanks at a later time.