The example quoted in the wikipedia is a bit weird, the quoted paragraph deals with the question of under which circumstances you can have owner-like rights fro

The example quoted in the wikipedia is a bit weird, the quoted paragraph deals with the question of under which circumstances you can have owner-like rights from something that you don't actually owned but rented (or was given to you under similar circumstances). There may or may not be a legal edge case involved, but it does not directly deal with "actions permitted or forbidden." The primary difference between common law and civil law is more among the lines that in common law systems each court decision creates a law (or is law-like) while in civil law, the law is created by the legislative. German courts have to follow the civil code and can't change or ignore it. Even the german constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) can't create a law. It may declare a law unconstitutional, but the burden of drafting a new law falls on the Bundestag. Obviously, there will be loopholes and there's always the question of how a given law applies to the circumstances, but even lower courts are not bound by the decisions of higher courts in similar cases - though usually decisions of other courts get cited in court proceedings. A pretty famous example is the Landgericht Hamburg which is known to decide in ways that the next higher court rejects (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) on appeal.