File #2448: "2018_Book_TransformationOfCivilJustice.pdf"
Testo
1|Preface|6
1|Contents|8
1|Contributors|11
1|Introduction|13
1|1 The Metamorphoses of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure: The Challenges of New Paradigms—Unity and Diversity|14
2|Abstract|14
2|1 Introduction|15
2|2 The Driving Forces of Change in Contemporary Civil Justice Systems|16
2|3 The Forms of Transformation: Unity and Diversity in Seven Polycentric Steps|18
3|3.1 Borrowing from National and Transnational Sources: Change as a Legislative Mimicry and Transplantation of Concepts|19
3|3.2 Technological Modernization: From ‘Justice’ to ‘E-Justice’|21
3|3.3 Reorganizing Justice: A Redefinition of Court Structures and Their Functions|23
3|3.4 Multi-dimensional Procedures: From Speed and Costs to Proportionality, Access to Justice and Case Management|24
3|3.5 In Pursuit of the Best Alternatives: Consensual Dispute Resolution and ADR|25
3|3.6 Collectivizing Decision-Making: Group Actions|26
3|3.7 Outsourcing, Privatization and Other Forms of Dejudicialization|27
2|4 Concluding Remarks|29
2|References|30
1|Impact of Regional and Global Developments: Cooperation, Borrowing, Transplants|33
1|2 Enforcement by Means of Periodic Penalties (Astreinte) in Slovenia: A Transplant Gone Wild|34
2|Abstract|34
2|1 Introduction|34
3|1.1 A General Outline of the Enforcement of Civil Judgments in Slovenia|34
3|1.2 The Imposition of Fines as the Primary Method of Enforcement of Certain Types of Permanent Injunctions|35
3|1.3 The Introduction of Astreinte as an “Implant” from the French Legal System|36
2|2 The Mixed Elements of Astreinte and Its Legislative Goal|38
2|3 Scope of Application|39
2|4 Determination of the Amount of Fines and Astreinte|40
2|5 Motion for the Partial Return of Paid Astreinte Following Fulfilment of the Obligation|42
2|6 Procedure|43
2|7 Enforcement of Fines and Astreinte Orders|44
2|8 Controversy Over the Concept of Astreinte in Slovenian Legal Doctrine|46
2|9 Conclusion|47
2|References|48
1|3 Norwegian Civil Procedure Under the Influence of EU Law|49
2|Abstract|49
2|1 Introduction|49
2|2 The Potential Impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Norwegian Civil Procedure|53
3|2.1 Article 47(1) EUCFR as an Expression of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection|53
3|2.2 Article 47(2) EUCFR as an Expression of the Right to a Fair Trial|55
3|2.3 Other Provisions of the EU Charter of Potential Relevance for Norwegian Procedural Law|57
2|3 The Procedural Side to the General Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality|58
2|4 The EU/EEA Law Principles of Effectiveness and Equivalence|61
2|5 Procedural Harmonization Through EU Secondary Law Within and Outside the Scope of the EEA Agreement—Consequences for Norway|65
2|6 Concluding Remarks|69
2|References|69
1|4 Judicial Cooperation of the EU in Civil Matters in Its Relations with Non-EU States—A Blind Spot?|71
2|Abstract|71
2|1 Introduction|71
2|2 Relevance of Foreign Trade for the EU: Some Facts and Figures|72
2|3 The EU’s Future Plans to Intensify Foreign Trade|73
2|4 Judicial Cooperation: An (Almost) Blind Spot|75
2|5 Measures|77
3|5.1 No Measures at All—Commercial Arbitration Takes Care of Everything|77
3|5.2 Inserting a Chapter on Judicial Cooperation in All FTAs|78
4|5.2.1 Along the Lines of Article 220 EEC|78
4|5.2.2 Declaration of Intention for Accession to the Core Hague Instruments on Judicial Cooperation|80
4|5.2.3 Tailor-Made Bilateral Solutions in FTAs|81
5|EU Competency|81
5|Which Tailor-Made Bilateral Measures?|85
2|6 Conclusions|87
2|References|87
1|5 Civil Litigation in Tribunals in South Africa: Creating a Unified Tribunal System|89
2|Abstract|89
2|1 General Overview|90
2|2 Introduction|90
2|3 The Rental Housing Tribunal|94
3|3.1 Overview of the Rental Housing Tribunal|94
3|3.2 The Historical Significance of the Rental Housing Tribunal|95
3|3.3 Deconstructing the Rental Housing Tribunal|95
2|4 The Companies Tribunal|96
3|4.1 Overview of the Companies Tribunal|96
3|4.2 The Historical Significance of the Companies Tribunal|97
3|4.3 Deconstructing the Companies Tribunal|97
2|5 The Competition Tribunal|98
3|5.1 Overview of the Competition Tribunal|98
3|5.2 The Historical Significance of the Competition Tribunal|99
3|5.3 Deconstructing the Competition Tribunal|99
2|6 The National Consumer Tribunal|100
3|6.1 Overview of the National Consumer Tribunal|100
3|6.2 The Historical Significance of the National Consumer Tribunal|101
3|6.3 Deconstructing the National Consumer Tribunal|101
2|7 The Water Tribunal|102
3|7.1 Overview of the Water Tribunal|102
3|7.2 The Historical Significance of the Water Tribunal|102
3|7.3 Deconstructing the Water Tribunal|102
2|8 Concluding Remarks|103
2|References|103
1|Unity and Diversity: Civil Justice Between Modernization and Dejudicialization|105
1|6 Informatization of the Civil Justice System in Poland: An Overview of Recent Changes|106
2|Abstract|106
2|1 Introduction|106
2|2 Data Banks Related to Courts and Civil Litigation|109
3|2.1 Free and Public Electronic Access (E-Access) to Judgments|109
3|2.2 E-Access to Individual Cases|110
2|3 Informatization of Proceedings|113
3|3.1 Recording of Hearings (E-Protocol/E-Transcript)|114
3|3.2 Electronic Order for Payment Procedure (EPU)|117
3|3.3 Expansion of Sources of Evidence|118
3|3.4 E-Court|119
2|4 Random, Automated Allocation of Cases|123
2|References|124
1|7 Between Reform and Dejudicialization: Current Trends in Spanish Civil Litigation|125
2|Abstract|125
2|1 Introduction|125
2|2 The Main Features of the New Code and the New Procedure|127
3|2.1 Scope|127
3|2.2 Influences|127
3|2.3 Overriding Principles|128
3|2.4 Main Innovations and the Structure of Contentious Civil Proceedings|130
3|2.5 Main Innovations and Structure of Enforcement Proceedings|135
2|3 What Has Come Afterwards?|137
3|3.1 Context|138
4|3.1.1 Economic Downturn|138
4|3.1.2 Case Overload|138
4|3.1.3 Staff Difficulties and Internal Organization of Courts|138
4|3.1.4 European “Pressure” on the System|139
3|3.2 Consequences and Remedies|140
4|3.2.1 Court Clerks and the “Dépeçage” of the Procedure|140
4|3.2.2 Financial Issues and Case Overload: Dejudicialization|142
5|Court Fees|142
5|ADR|143
5|Dejudicialization of Some Proceedings|144
5|Non-contentious Proceedings|144
5|Divorce and Separation Proceedings|144
5|Order for Payment Procedure|145
5|Anything to Resolve Mass Litigation?|145
4|3.2.3 European “Pressure” on Civil Procedure|146
2|4 Balance|147
2|References|148
1|8 The Disappearing Trial: Retrenchment of Litigation in North America|150
2|Abstract|150
2|1 Introduction|150
2|2 Personal Jurisdiction|153
2|3 Class Actions|155
2|4 Discovery|158
2|5 Arbitration|159
2|6 Conclusion|161
2|References|162
1|9 Private Justice in the Domain of Family Law: The Place of Family Group Conferences Within the Range of ADR Methods|163
2|Abstract|163
2|1 Mediation: The 2016 European Commission Report on Directive 2008/52/EC|163
2|2 Collaborative Practice: An Increasingly Familiar Mediation Variety|165
2|3 From State Abstention to State Intervention in Family Life|165
2|4 The FGC in New Zealand|166
2|5 Reception of the FGC in Europe—General Observations|168
2|6 Reception in the UK: The FGC as a Judicial Case Management Tool?|168
2|7 Reception in the Netherlands: The FGC as Camouflage for Self-help Duties?|170
2|8 The FGC and the Dutch Courts: Are Professionals Made the Gatekeepers for Family Autonomy?|171
2|9 FGCs and ‘Regular’ Modes of ADR: A Provisional Assessment|172
2|Acknowledgements|174
2|References|174
1|10 Reassessing the Essential Role of Public Courts: Learning from the American Experience|176
2|Abstract|176
2|1 Introduction|176
2|2 The 20th Century-Evolution of American Procedure|178
3|2.1 The Centrality of Trial in America’s Public Procedure|179
3|2.2 The Frustrations of 19th-Century US Procedure, and the Embrace of the 1938 Federal Rules|180
2|3 American Litigation in the ‘Golden Age’|180
3|3.1 ‘Public Law’ Litigation|180
3|3.2 Private Enforcement by Private Attorneys General|182
3|3.3 The Upsurge in Business Litigation|183
2|4 The Reaction—Constraining American Procedure|184
2|5 An Alternative Response—Case Management|186
2|6 The Independence of Ordinary Public Judges, and Expanding Judicial Capacity to Include Less Traditional ‘Judges’|188
2|7 The Flowering and Partial Disappointment with ADR|190
2|8 The Risks of Compelled ADR, Particularly Arbitration|194
2|9 Conclusion: Whither (or Wither) the Courts?|198
2|References|199
1|Global Trends: From Individual to Collective Justice|202
1|11 Human Rights Class Actions|203
2|Abstract|203
2|1 Introduction|203
2|2 Human Rights Class Actions: What They Are, How They Work|204
2|3 Protecting the Victims of Human Rights Violations Through the ATCA and the TVPA: From Individual Actions to Class Actions|207
2|4 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: A Nonreversible Setback?|210
2|5 Who Is Afraid of Universal Jurisdiction?|211
2|References|213
1|12 A New Model of Civil Litigation in Slovenia: Is the Slovenian Judiciary Prepared for the Challenges Presented by the New Law on Collective Actions?|215
2|Abstract|215
2|1 Introduction|215
2|2 Slovenian Collective Redress|216
2|3 A “New Model of Civil Litigation”|217
2|4 The Dawn of the Regulatory Functions in the Law of Civil Procedure in Slovenia|219
2|5 Can Future Slovenian Collective Redress Be a Success Story?|223
2|6 Conclusion|227
2|References|227
1|13 The Brazilian Collective Redress System|230
2|Abstract|230
2|1 Initial Remarks|230
2|2 The Popular Action in Brazil|231
2|3 The Birth of the Collective Action (or Public Civil Action)|233
2|4 The Adolescence of the Brazilian Collective Action|235
3|4.1 The Interests Protected|236
3|4.2 Locus Standi in “Public Civil Actions”|237
3|4.3 The Relief Sought|238
3|4.4 The Relationship Between Collective Actions and Individual Claims|238
3|4.5 Res Judicata in Collective Actions|239
3|4.6 Enforcing the Public Civil Action|241
2|5 The New Code of Civil Procedure and New Instruments of Collective Redress|241
2|6 Brazilian “Precedents” as a False Answer|245
2|7 Final Remarks|246
2|References|247
1|14 ‘Shadow of the Law’ or ‘Shadow of the Settlement’: Experiences with the Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Damage (WCAM)|249
2|Abstract|249
2|1 Introduction: Public Justice Versus Private Justice?|249
2|2 Round Sourcing Between Public and Private Justice: Collective Redress|252
2|3 WCAM: The Dutch Experience|253
2|4 The Dexia Case|254
2|5 Collective Settlement and Reflex Effect|257
2|6 Private Justice Reassessed: Hybrid Governance and Rule of Law|259
2|7 Round Sourcing: Blessing or Betrayal?|261
2|References|262
1|Access to Justice and Fair Trial Rights|264
1|15 Transformation of the Croatian Legal Aid System: From Normative to Functional Insufficiency|265
2|Abstract|265
2|1 Introduction|265
2|2 What the Transformation Was Supposed to Achieve|267
2|3 Reality Check: Evaluation of the Current System|268
3|3.1 Growing Number of Approved Applications as an Indicator of Successful Reform?|268
3|3.2 (Mal)Functioning of the Commission for Legal Aid|270
3|3.3 Budgetary Trends|272
3|3.4 Overcomplexity of the System|274
3|3.5 Ministry’s Reports|275
2|4 Conclusion|276
2|References|277
1|16 The Transformation of Consumer Law in Times of Crisis: The Ex Officio Control of Unfair Contract Terms|280
2|Abstract|280
2|1 Introduction|281
2|2 The Consumer Protection Framework: EU Rights and National Remedies|282
2|3 Consumer Protection and the Preliminary Reference Procedure: Post-crisis Trends|285
2|4 The ECJ’s Proceduralisation of EU Consumer Rights: The Example of the Ex Officio Regulation of Unfair Contract Terms|289
2|5 The Transformation of Procedural Protection at the National Level|296
2|6 Concluding Remarks|302
2|References|303
1|17 Safeguarding the Right to an Impartial Tribunal by Means of Challenging the Judge|305
2|Abstract|305
2|1 Introduction|306
2|2 Art. 6(1) ECHR and the Requirement of an Impartial Tribunal|307
3|2.1 Applicability of Art. 6 ECHR in Civil Proceedings|307
3|2.2 Objective and Subjective Impartiality|308
3|2.3 Procedural Requirements Imposed on the Contracting States|309
2|3 Comparing the Civil Challenge Procedures Found in EU Member States|310
3|3.1 Essential Elements of Challenge Procedures|310
3|3.2 Comparative Results|311
4|3.2.1 The Imposition of a Time Limit|311
4|3.2.2 Anti-abuse Penalties|314
4|3.2.3 Self-assessment on Impartiality by the Challenged Judge|316
4|3.2.4 Requirements Imposed on the Panel Deciding on the Challenge|316
2|4 Effectiveness of Challenge Procedures|318
3|4.1 Survey|318
3|4.2 Designing the ‘Scoreboard’|320
2|5 Results|322
2|6 Conclusion|324
2|References|325
1|Transforming the Apex of the Court Pyramid: The Changing Function of the Highest Courts|326
1|18 Roots of the Resistance to the Change in the Supreme Court’s Role|327
2|Abstract|327
2|1 Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Public Purpose|328
2|2 Four Stories: Four Perspectives|329
2|3 In Search of the Whole Elephant|331
2|4 Four Misperceptions: Roots of the Resistance to the Change|333
2|5 What to Do and How to Do It?|338
2|6 Conclusion: The Place of the Stories?|339
2|References|339
1|19 Transformation of the Cassation Model in France, The Netherlands and Belgium: Piercing the Legalistic Veil|342
2|Abstract|342
2|1 Introduction|342
2|2 History of the Cassation Model|343
2|3 Transformation of the Cassation Model|344
3|3.1 Competence|345
4|3.1.1 France|345
4|3.1.2 The Netherlands|346
4|3.1.3 Belgium|346
3|3.2 Access to the Court|346
4|3.2.1 France|348
4|3.2.2 The Netherlands|349
4|3.2.3 Belgium|351
3|3.3 Preliminary Procedure|351
4|3.3.1 France|352
4|3.3.2 The Netherlands|353
4|3.3.3 Belgium|354
3|3.4 Remittal|355
4|3.4.1 France|355
4|3.4.2 The Netherlands|357
4|3.4.3 Belgium|358
3|3.5 Reasoning|359
4|3.5.1 France|361
4|3.5.2 The Netherlands|362
4|3.5.3 Belgium|362
2|4 Future of the Cassation Mechanism|363
2|5 Conclusion|365
2|References|366
1|Historical Transformations|372
1|20 Does the New Always Prevail? Parallel Modes of Procedure in the History of Procedural Transformations|373
2|Abstract|373
2|1 Introduction|373
2|2 The Problem of Lex Aebutia in Roman Law|375
2|3 Perspectives from the History of Civil Procedure in the English Common Law|379
2|4 Reforms in the Lands of the Habsburg Monarchy in the 19th Century|382
2|5 Conclusion|387
2|References|390
1|21 Historical Uniformity and Diversity of Notaries in the Shadow of Their Modern Transformation|393
2|Abstract|393
2|1 Introduction|393
2|2 Scribes in the Vague Nomenclature of the Middle Ages Until the 13th Century|395
2|3 Meaning, Function and Role of the notarius by the Late 13th Century|397
2|4 Notaries in the Church After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)|398
2|5 Divergent Notarial Practices, Functions and Roles in the Later Middle Ages|401
2|6 Conclusions|404
2|References|405
1|About the Authors|407
1|Sergio Cruz Arenhart|407
1|Rashri Baboolal-Frank|407
1|Marko Bratković|407
1|Juraj Brozović|408
1|Fokke Fernhout|408
1|Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen|408
1|Aleš Galič|408
1|Fernando Gascón Inchausti|408
1|Erwin Giesen|409
1|Henrik-Riko Held|409
1|Rob Jagtenberg|409
1|Bartosz Karolczyk|409
1|Stephanie Law|409
1|Richard Marcus|410
1|Ivan Milotić|410
1|Annie de Roo|410
1|Elisabetta Silvestri|410
1|Jorg Sladič|410
1|Magne Strandberg|411
1|Alan Uzelac|411
1|Matthias Van Der Haegen|411
1|C. H. (Remco) van Rhee|411
1|Oscar Vranken|412
1|Matthias Weller|412
1|Margaret Woo|412
1|Contents|8
1|Contributors|11
1|Introduction|13
1|1 The Metamorphoses of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure: The Challenges of New Paradigms—Unity and Diversity|14
2|Abstract|14
2|1 Introduction|15
2|2 The Driving Forces of Change in Contemporary Civil Justice Systems|16
2|3 The Forms of Transformation: Unity and Diversity in Seven Polycentric Steps|18
3|3.1 Borrowing from National and Transnational Sources: Change as a Legislative Mimicry and Transplantation of Concepts|19
3|3.2 Technological Modernization: From ‘Justice’ to ‘E-Justice’|21
3|3.3 Reorganizing Justice: A Redefinition of Court Structures and Their Functions|23
3|3.4 Multi-dimensional Procedures: From Speed and Costs to Proportionality, Access to Justice and Case Management|24
3|3.5 In Pursuit of the Best Alternatives: Consensual Dispute Resolution and ADR|25
3|3.6 Collectivizing Decision-Making: Group Actions|26
3|3.7 Outsourcing, Privatization and Other Forms of Dejudicialization|27
2|4 Concluding Remarks|29
2|References|30
1|Impact of Regional and Global Developments: Cooperation, Borrowing, Transplants|33
1|2 Enforcement by Means of Periodic Penalties (Astreinte) in Slovenia: A Transplant Gone Wild|34
2|Abstract|34
2|1 Introduction|34
3|1.1 A General Outline of the Enforcement of Civil Judgments in Slovenia|34
3|1.2 The Imposition of Fines as the Primary Method of Enforcement of Certain Types of Permanent Injunctions|35
3|1.3 The Introduction of Astreinte as an “Implant” from the French Legal System|36
2|2 The Mixed Elements of Astreinte and Its Legislative Goal|38
2|3 Scope of Application|39
2|4 Determination of the Amount of Fines and Astreinte|40
2|5 Motion for the Partial Return of Paid Astreinte Following Fulfilment of the Obligation|42
2|6 Procedure|43
2|7 Enforcement of Fines and Astreinte Orders|44
2|8 Controversy Over the Concept of Astreinte in Slovenian Legal Doctrine|46
2|9 Conclusion|47
2|References|48
1|3 Norwegian Civil Procedure Under the Influence of EU Law|49
2|Abstract|49
2|1 Introduction|49
2|2 The Potential Impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Norwegian Civil Procedure|53
3|2.1 Article 47(1) EUCFR as an Expression of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection|53
3|2.2 Article 47(2) EUCFR as an Expression of the Right to a Fair Trial|55
3|2.3 Other Provisions of the EU Charter of Potential Relevance for Norwegian Procedural Law|57
2|3 The Procedural Side to the General Prohibition of Discrimination on Grounds of Nationality|58
2|4 The EU/EEA Law Principles of Effectiveness and Equivalence|61
2|5 Procedural Harmonization Through EU Secondary Law Within and Outside the Scope of the EEA Agreement—Consequences for Norway|65
2|6 Concluding Remarks|69
2|References|69
1|4 Judicial Cooperation of the EU in Civil Matters in Its Relations with Non-EU States—A Blind Spot?|71
2|Abstract|71
2|1 Introduction|71
2|2 Relevance of Foreign Trade for the EU: Some Facts and Figures|72
2|3 The EU’s Future Plans to Intensify Foreign Trade|73
2|4 Judicial Cooperation: An (Almost) Blind Spot|75
2|5 Measures|77
3|5.1 No Measures at All—Commercial Arbitration Takes Care of Everything|77
3|5.2 Inserting a Chapter on Judicial Cooperation in All FTAs|78
4|5.2.1 Along the Lines of Article 220 EEC|78
4|5.2.2 Declaration of Intention for Accession to the Core Hague Instruments on Judicial Cooperation|80
4|5.2.3 Tailor-Made Bilateral Solutions in FTAs|81
5|EU Competency|81
5|Which Tailor-Made Bilateral Measures?|85
2|6 Conclusions|87
2|References|87
1|5 Civil Litigation in Tribunals in South Africa: Creating a Unified Tribunal System|89
2|Abstract|89
2|1 General Overview|90
2|2 Introduction|90
2|3 The Rental Housing Tribunal|94
3|3.1 Overview of the Rental Housing Tribunal|94
3|3.2 The Historical Significance of the Rental Housing Tribunal|95
3|3.3 Deconstructing the Rental Housing Tribunal|95
2|4 The Companies Tribunal|96
3|4.1 Overview of the Companies Tribunal|96
3|4.2 The Historical Significance of the Companies Tribunal|97
3|4.3 Deconstructing the Companies Tribunal|97
2|5 The Competition Tribunal|98
3|5.1 Overview of the Competition Tribunal|98
3|5.2 The Historical Significance of the Competition Tribunal|99
3|5.3 Deconstructing the Competition Tribunal|99
2|6 The National Consumer Tribunal|100
3|6.1 Overview of the National Consumer Tribunal|100
3|6.2 The Historical Significance of the National Consumer Tribunal|101
3|6.3 Deconstructing the National Consumer Tribunal|101
2|7 The Water Tribunal|102
3|7.1 Overview of the Water Tribunal|102
3|7.2 The Historical Significance of the Water Tribunal|102
3|7.3 Deconstructing the Water Tribunal|102
2|8 Concluding Remarks|103
2|References|103
1|Unity and Diversity: Civil Justice Between Modernization and Dejudicialization|105
1|6 Informatization of the Civil Justice System in Poland: An Overview of Recent Changes|106
2|Abstract|106
2|1 Introduction|106
2|2 Data Banks Related to Courts and Civil Litigation|109
3|2.1 Free and Public Electronic Access (E-Access) to Judgments|109
3|2.2 E-Access to Individual Cases|110
2|3 Informatization of Proceedings|113
3|3.1 Recording of Hearings (E-Protocol/E-Transcript)|114
3|3.2 Electronic Order for Payment Procedure (EPU)|117
3|3.3 Expansion of Sources of Evidence|118
3|3.4 E-Court|119
2|4 Random, Automated Allocation of Cases|123
2|References|124
1|7 Between Reform and Dejudicialization: Current Trends in Spanish Civil Litigation|125
2|Abstract|125
2|1 Introduction|125
2|2 The Main Features of the New Code and the New Procedure|127
3|2.1 Scope|127
3|2.2 Influences|127
3|2.3 Overriding Principles|128
3|2.4 Main Innovations and the Structure of Contentious Civil Proceedings|130
3|2.5 Main Innovations and Structure of Enforcement Proceedings|135
2|3 What Has Come Afterwards?|137
3|3.1 Context|138
4|3.1.1 Economic Downturn|138
4|3.1.2 Case Overload|138
4|3.1.3 Staff Difficulties and Internal Organization of Courts|138
4|3.1.4 European “Pressure” on the System|139
3|3.2 Consequences and Remedies|140
4|3.2.1 Court Clerks and the “Dépeçage” of the Procedure|140
4|3.2.2 Financial Issues and Case Overload: Dejudicialization|142
5|Court Fees|142
5|ADR|143
5|Dejudicialization of Some Proceedings|144
5|Non-contentious Proceedings|144
5|Divorce and Separation Proceedings|144
5|Order for Payment Procedure|145
5|Anything to Resolve Mass Litigation?|145
4|3.2.3 European “Pressure” on Civil Procedure|146
2|4 Balance|147
2|References|148
1|8 The Disappearing Trial: Retrenchment of Litigation in North America|150
2|Abstract|150
2|1 Introduction|150
2|2 Personal Jurisdiction|153
2|3 Class Actions|155
2|4 Discovery|158
2|5 Arbitration|159
2|6 Conclusion|161
2|References|162
1|9 Private Justice in the Domain of Family Law: The Place of Family Group Conferences Within the Range of ADR Methods|163
2|Abstract|163
2|1 Mediation: The 2016 European Commission Report on Directive 2008/52/EC|163
2|2 Collaborative Practice: An Increasingly Familiar Mediation Variety|165
2|3 From State Abstention to State Intervention in Family Life|165
2|4 The FGC in New Zealand|166
2|5 Reception of the FGC in Europe—General Observations|168
2|6 Reception in the UK: The FGC as a Judicial Case Management Tool?|168
2|7 Reception in the Netherlands: The FGC as Camouflage for Self-help Duties?|170
2|8 The FGC and the Dutch Courts: Are Professionals Made the Gatekeepers for Family Autonomy?|171
2|9 FGCs and ‘Regular’ Modes of ADR: A Provisional Assessment|172
2|Acknowledgements|174
2|References|174
1|10 Reassessing the Essential Role of Public Courts: Learning from the American Experience|176
2|Abstract|176
2|1 Introduction|176
2|2 The 20th Century-Evolution of American Procedure|178
3|2.1 The Centrality of Trial in America’s Public Procedure|179
3|2.2 The Frustrations of 19th-Century US Procedure, and the Embrace of the 1938 Federal Rules|180
2|3 American Litigation in the ‘Golden Age’|180
3|3.1 ‘Public Law’ Litigation|180
3|3.2 Private Enforcement by Private Attorneys General|182
3|3.3 The Upsurge in Business Litigation|183
2|4 The Reaction—Constraining American Procedure|184
2|5 An Alternative Response—Case Management|186
2|6 The Independence of Ordinary Public Judges, and Expanding Judicial Capacity to Include Less Traditional ‘Judges’|188
2|7 The Flowering and Partial Disappointment with ADR|190
2|8 The Risks of Compelled ADR, Particularly Arbitration|194
2|9 Conclusion: Whither (or Wither) the Courts?|198
2|References|199
1|Global Trends: From Individual to Collective Justice|202
1|11 Human Rights Class Actions|203
2|Abstract|203
2|1 Introduction|203
2|2 Human Rights Class Actions: What They Are, How They Work|204
2|3 Protecting the Victims of Human Rights Violations Through the ATCA and the TVPA: From Individual Actions to Class Actions|207
2|4 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.: A Nonreversible Setback?|210
2|5 Who Is Afraid of Universal Jurisdiction?|211
2|References|213
1|12 A New Model of Civil Litigation in Slovenia: Is the Slovenian Judiciary Prepared for the Challenges Presented by the New Law on Collective Actions?|215
2|Abstract|215
2|1 Introduction|215
2|2 Slovenian Collective Redress|216
2|3 A “New Model of Civil Litigation”|217
2|4 The Dawn of the Regulatory Functions in the Law of Civil Procedure in Slovenia|219
2|5 Can Future Slovenian Collective Redress Be a Success Story?|223
2|6 Conclusion|227
2|References|227
1|13 The Brazilian Collective Redress System|230
2|Abstract|230
2|1 Initial Remarks|230
2|2 The Popular Action in Brazil|231
2|3 The Birth of the Collective Action (or Public Civil Action)|233
2|4 The Adolescence of the Brazilian Collective Action|235
3|4.1 The Interests Protected|236
3|4.2 Locus Standi in “Public Civil Actions”|237
3|4.3 The Relief Sought|238
3|4.4 The Relationship Between Collective Actions and Individual Claims|238
3|4.5 Res Judicata in Collective Actions|239
3|4.6 Enforcing the Public Civil Action|241
2|5 The New Code of Civil Procedure and New Instruments of Collective Redress|241
2|6 Brazilian “Precedents” as a False Answer|245
2|7 Final Remarks|246
2|References|247
1|14 ‘Shadow of the Law’ or ‘Shadow of the Settlement’: Experiences with the Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Damage (WCAM)|249
2|Abstract|249
2|1 Introduction: Public Justice Versus Private Justice?|249
2|2 Round Sourcing Between Public and Private Justice: Collective Redress|252
2|3 WCAM: The Dutch Experience|253
2|4 The Dexia Case|254
2|5 Collective Settlement and Reflex Effect|257
2|6 Private Justice Reassessed: Hybrid Governance and Rule of Law|259
2|7 Round Sourcing: Blessing or Betrayal?|261
2|References|262
1|Access to Justice and Fair Trial Rights|264
1|15 Transformation of the Croatian Legal Aid System: From Normative to Functional Insufficiency|265
2|Abstract|265
2|1 Introduction|265
2|2 What the Transformation Was Supposed to Achieve|267
2|3 Reality Check: Evaluation of the Current System|268
3|3.1 Growing Number of Approved Applications as an Indicator of Successful Reform?|268
3|3.2 (Mal)Functioning of the Commission for Legal Aid|270
3|3.3 Budgetary Trends|272
3|3.4 Overcomplexity of the System|274
3|3.5 Ministry’s Reports|275
2|4 Conclusion|276
2|References|277
1|16 The Transformation of Consumer Law in Times of Crisis: The Ex Officio Control of Unfair Contract Terms|280
2|Abstract|280
2|1 Introduction|281
2|2 The Consumer Protection Framework: EU Rights and National Remedies|282
2|3 Consumer Protection and the Preliminary Reference Procedure: Post-crisis Trends|285
2|4 The ECJ’s Proceduralisation of EU Consumer Rights: The Example of the Ex Officio Regulation of Unfair Contract Terms|289
2|5 The Transformation of Procedural Protection at the National Level|296
2|6 Concluding Remarks|302
2|References|303
1|17 Safeguarding the Right to an Impartial Tribunal by Means of Challenging the Judge|305
2|Abstract|305
2|1 Introduction|306
2|2 Art. 6(1) ECHR and the Requirement of an Impartial Tribunal|307
3|2.1 Applicability of Art. 6 ECHR in Civil Proceedings|307
3|2.2 Objective and Subjective Impartiality|308
3|2.3 Procedural Requirements Imposed on the Contracting States|309
2|3 Comparing the Civil Challenge Procedures Found in EU Member States|310
3|3.1 Essential Elements of Challenge Procedures|310
3|3.2 Comparative Results|311
4|3.2.1 The Imposition of a Time Limit|311
4|3.2.2 Anti-abuse Penalties|314
4|3.2.3 Self-assessment on Impartiality by the Challenged Judge|316
4|3.2.4 Requirements Imposed on the Panel Deciding on the Challenge|316
2|4 Effectiveness of Challenge Procedures|318
3|4.1 Survey|318
3|4.2 Designing the ‘Scoreboard’|320
2|5 Results|322
2|6 Conclusion|324
2|References|325
1|Transforming the Apex of the Court Pyramid: The Changing Function of the Highest Courts|326
1|18 Roots of the Resistance to the Change in the Supreme Court’s Role|327
2|Abstract|327
2|1 Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Public Purpose|328
2|2 Four Stories: Four Perspectives|329
2|3 In Search of the Whole Elephant|331
2|4 Four Misperceptions: Roots of the Resistance to the Change|333
2|5 What to Do and How to Do It?|338
2|6 Conclusion: The Place of the Stories?|339
2|References|339
1|19 Transformation of the Cassation Model in France, The Netherlands and Belgium: Piercing the Legalistic Veil|342
2|Abstract|342
2|1 Introduction|342
2|2 History of the Cassation Model|343
2|3 Transformation of the Cassation Model|344
3|3.1 Competence|345
4|3.1.1 France|345
4|3.1.2 The Netherlands|346
4|3.1.3 Belgium|346
3|3.2 Access to the Court|346
4|3.2.1 France|348
4|3.2.2 The Netherlands|349
4|3.2.3 Belgium|351
3|3.3 Preliminary Procedure|351
4|3.3.1 France|352
4|3.3.2 The Netherlands|353
4|3.3.3 Belgium|354
3|3.4 Remittal|355
4|3.4.1 France|355
4|3.4.2 The Netherlands|357
4|3.4.3 Belgium|358
3|3.5 Reasoning|359
4|3.5.1 France|361
4|3.5.2 The Netherlands|362
4|3.5.3 Belgium|362
2|4 Future of the Cassation Mechanism|363
2|5 Conclusion|365
2|References|366
1|Historical Transformations|372
1|20 Does the New Always Prevail? Parallel Modes of Procedure in the History of Procedural Transformations|373
2|Abstract|373
2|1 Introduction|373
2|2 The Problem of Lex Aebutia in Roman Law|375
2|3 Perspectives from the History of Civil Procedure in the English Common Law|379
2|4 Reforms in the Lands of the Habsburg Monarchy in the 19th Century|382
2|5 Conclusion|387
2|References|390
1|21 Historical Uniformity and Diversity of Notaries in the Shadow of Their Modern Transformation|393
2|Abstract|393
2|1 Introduction|393
2|2 Scribes in the Vague Nomenclature of the Middle Ages Until the 13th Century|395
2|3 Meaning, Function and Role of the notarius by the Late 13th Century|397
2|4 Notaries in the Church After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)|398
2|5 Divergent Notarial Practices, Functions and Roles in the Later Middle Ages|401
2|6 Conclusions|404
2|References|405
1|About the Authors|407
1|Sergio Cruz Arenhart|407
1|Rashri Baboolal-Frank|407
1|Marko Bratković|407
1|Juraj Brozović|408
1|Fokke Fernhout|408
1|Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen|408
1|Aleš Galič|408
1|Fernando Gascón Inchausti|408
1|Erwin Giesen|409
1|Henrik-Riko Held|409
1|Rob Jagtenberg|409
1|Bartosz Karolczyk|409
1|Stephanie Law|409
1|Richard Marcus|410
1|Ivan Milotić|410
1|Annie de Roo|410
1|Elisabetta Silvestri|410
1|Jorg Sladič|410
1|Magne Strandberg|411
1|Alan Uzelac|411
1|Matthias Van Der Haegen|411
1|C. H. (Remco) van Rhee|411
1|Oscar Vranken|412
1|Matthias Weller|412
1|Margaret Woo|412