E-Book, Englisch, Band 8, 486 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
E-Book, Englisch, Band 8, 486 Seiten, Format (B × H): 153 mm x 227 mm
ISBN: 978-3-8452-8521-4
Verlag: Nomos
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
Das vorliegende Buch fragt nach den „best practices“ gemeinsamer Regeln und Praktiken. Inspiriert von der Verschiebung des Schwerpunkts von der Schaffung neuer Rechtsvorschriften hin zu einer Konzentration auf die konkrete Umsetzung, bietet der Band einen Überblick über einen einheitlichen europäischen Rechtsraum und seinen Regeln.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Cover;1
2; From Common Rules to Best Practices in European Civil Procedure: An Introduction;9
2.1; (A) A New Era for Civil Procedure in the EU;9
2.1.1; (1) Policy and Legislative Perspectives;9
2.1.2; (2) An Academic Endeavour: the ELI-Unidroit European Rules of Civil Procedure;15
2.1.3; (3) From Common Rules to Best Practices;17
2.2; (B) Four Perspectives on EU Civil Justice;18
2.2.1; (1) Common Standards of EU Civil Procedure: Harmonization and Cooperation;18
2.2.2; (2) Procedural Innovation and e-Justice;20
2.2.3; (3) Alternative Dispute Resolution and Judicial Cooperation;22
2.2.4; (4) Promoting Best Practices in Judicial Cooperation;23
2.3; (C) Some Observations on Challenges and Future Avenues;23
2.3.1; (1) Justice for Growth and Justice as an End in Itself;24
2.3.2; (2) Horizontal and/or Vertical Harmonization: Towards More Coherence;25
2.3.3; (3) Towards “Minimum Common Standards”?;26
2.3.4; (4) Best Practices: Uniform and Effective Application;27
2.3.5; (5) Changing Dynamics in the EU;27
2.4; (D) Concluding Remarks;29
3; Common Rules and Best Practices From the Perspective of the European Commission;31
4; Common Rules and Best Practices From the Perspective of the European Parliament;35
5; Harmonizing Civil Procedure: Initial Remarks;43
5.1; (A) Preliminary Remark;43
5.2; (B) The Notion of a “Standard”;43
5.3; (C) Procedural rules, financial resources, mindsets;44
5.4; (D) Harmonization of Civil Procedure: Criticism;46
5.5; (E) Praesumptio Similitudinis?;47
5.6; (F) Procedural Law and Culture;48
5.7; (G) Drivers of Harmonization of Civil Procedure;50
5.8; (H) The “Quiet [?] Power of Indicators”;52
5.9; (I) The ELI/UNIDROIT Joint Project on European Rules of Civil Procedure;55
5.10; (J) Goals of Civil Justice;57
5.11; (K) Concluding Remarks;62
6; Approximation of Civil Procedural Law in the European Union;63
6.1; (A) Introduction;63
6.2; (B) Is Harmonization Necessary?;64
6.3; (C) How should Approximation be Achieved?;65
6.4; (D) Best Practices?;67
6.5; (E) How to Achieve Civil Procedural Alignment in Europe?;70
6.6; (F) Beyond Common Rules and Towards Best Practices; EU Justice Scoreboard;73
6.7; (G) Conclusion;74
7; Do We Need Harmonisation to Achieve Harmonious Cooperation?;77
7.1; Judicial Cooperation for Criminal Matters as a Testing Field;77
7.1.1; (A) Introduction;77
7.1.2; (B) History and Evolution of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters;80
7.1.2.1; (1) Background and First Steps towards Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters;80
7.1.2.2; (2) Procedural Safeguards: From 2000 to 2009 and Beyond;84
7.1.3; (C) Mutual Recognition, Approximation, Equivalence, in Judicial Cooperation for Criminal Matters;86
7.1.3.1; (1) Mutual Recognition versus/and Approximation;86
7.1.3.2; (2) In the context of criminal judicial cooperation;87
7.1.3.2.1; (a) Mutual Recognition, Approximation and Fundamental Rights;87
7.1.3.2.2; (b) The CJEU. Mutual Trust beyond Approximation;90
7.1.3.3; (3) Allocation of Roles between the Issuing and the Requested Member States;96
7.1.4; (D) Approximation of Procedural Rights. The State of the Art;98
7.1.4.1; (1) Procedures for Mutual Recognition;98
7.1.4.2; (2) Approximation of Procedural Rights and Safeguards;99
7.1.4.3; (3) Assessment;103
7.1.5; (E) Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters: A Comparison;106
7.1.5.1; (1) Articles 81, 82 TFUE;106
7.1.5.1.1; (a) A Divergent Wording;106
7.1.5.1.2; (b) Relevant Divergences;107
7.1.5.2; (2) Conceptual Bases. The Role of the Individual;109
7.1.5.3; (3) Nuances;112
7.1.5.4; (4) How, How Much;114
7.1.6; (F) Conclusion;116
8; Harmonious Judicial Cooperation Through Harmonisation: (What) Can We Learn From Criminal Matters?;119
8.1; (A) Introduction;119
8.2; (B) Has Harmonisation in Criminal Justice Led to Harmonious Cooperation?;120
8.3; (C) The Civil Justice Paradigm and the Role of Party Autonomy;125
8.4; (D) Minimum Standards as Maximum Standards;127
8.5; (E) Enforcement of Standards;129
8.6; (F) Conclusion;130
9; Harmonization of Civil Procedure: Is the United States a Model for the European Union?;133
9.1; (A) Introduction;133
9.2; (B) From the English Tradition to a United States Model;136
9.3; (C) The Limits of Procedural Harmonization in the US;138
9.3.1; (1) Procedural Diversity Across US States;139
9.3.2; (2) Procedural Diversity within the Federal System;141
9.3.3; (3) Procedural Diversity Between State Systems and the Federal System;144
9.3.4; (4) Implications for the European Union;145
9.4; (D) The Full Faith and Credit Alternative;147
9.4.1; (1) Full Faith and Credit;147
9.4.2; (2) Fundamental Principles of Procedure;150
9.4.3; (3) Implications for the EU;152
9.5; (E) The Politics of Procedural Reform;155
9.6; (G) Conclusion;157
10; Comments on Christopher A. Whytock, Harmonization of EU Procedural Law: Is the US a Positive or Negative Model?;159
10.1; (A) Introduction;159
10.2; (B) Reasons for legal transplants from the federal or European level to the member states;160
10.3; (C) The trickling down of European rules of civil procedure into the domestic legal systems;165
10.3.1; (1) Through domestic legislation;165
10.3.1.1; (a) Recognition and enforcement of third-state judgments;165
10.3.1.2; (b) Public policy;166
10.3.1.3; (c) Service of documents;167
10.3.2; (2) Through domestic courts;169
10.3.2.1; (a) In general;169
10.3.2.2; (b) Place of performance in contractual litigation;169
10.3.2.3; (c) Choice-of-court agreements with consumers;170
10.3.2.4; (d) Violations of personality rights via the internet;171
10.3.2.5; (e) Negative declaratory action and lis alibi pendens;175
10.3.3; (3) Conclusion;176
10.4; (D) Top-down harmonization;177
10.5; (E) "Full faith and credit" and mutual trust;178
10.6; (F) The political dimension;179
10.7; (G) Conclusion;180
11; From Drafting Common Rules to Implementing Electronic European Civil Procedures: The Rise of e-CODEX;181
11.1; (A) Introduction;182
11.2; (B) Research Methodology;184
11.3; (C) European Civil Procedures;186
11.4; (D) e-CODEX;192
11.4.1; (1) An introduction to the project;192
11.4.2; (2) Determining the technological and normative requirements;193
11.4.2.1; (a) Key legal requirements;194
11.4.2.2; (b) Key technological requirements;195
11.4.2.3; (c) Additional requirements;196
11.4.3; (3) The e-codex solution;197
11.4.4; (4) From developing to piloting;199
11.5; (E) Going Beyond;204
11.5.1; (1) Knowledge creation on cross-border procedures;204
11.5.2; (2) Policy making and Political dimensions;205
11.6; (F) Concluding remarks;211
12; Taking Justice Online: Developments in England and Wales and Their Potential Influence on European Procedural Harmonisation;213
12.1; (A) Introduction;213
12.2; (B) Background to the Reforms;215
12.3; (C) Two Routes to Reform;219
12.3.1; (1) The first route – The HMCTS Reform Programme;219
12.3.2; (2) The second route – JUSTICE, the CJC and the CCSR;223
12.4; (D) Inspiration for European Convergence;233
12.5; (E) Conclusion;240
13; Envisioning the Next Step in e-Justice: In Search of the Key to Provide Easy Access to Cross-border Justice for All Users;243
13.1; (A) Introduction;243
13.2; (B) Where It All Began: At the Origins of the Cross-border Access to Justice Topic;247
13.3; (C) The e-Justice Now;250
13.3.1; (1) e-Law;251
13.3.2; (2) e-Justice;253
13.3.2.1; The deployment of e-CODEX in the Civil Law domain experience;255
13.4; (D) Cross-border Justice From the User Perspective: The User Story Approach;260
13.4.1; (1) An Example of User Story Derived From the API for Justice Project: DIY Application for the European Order for Payment;261
13.4.2; (2) Getting away from frustration;262
13.5; (E) Where to Go From Here;264
14; E-Justice, Innovation and the EU;271
14.1; (A) Introduction: A Triad of Issues;271
14.2; (B) EU e-Justice;274
14.2.1; (1) Background;274
14.2.2; (2) Nascent e-Justice Developments;276
14.2.2.1; (a) Aims, Scope and Functions;276
14.2.2.2; (b) Achievements and Future Projects;278
14.2.2.3; (c) e-CODEX;279
14.2.3; (3) Analysis;281
14.2.3.1; (a) Challenge of Decentralisation and Interoperability;281
14.2.3.2; (b) Challenge of Functionality;283
14.2.3.3; (c) Additional Challenges;285
14.3; (C) Electronic Service of Documents;287
14.3.1; (1) Domestic Models in the EU;287
14.3.2; (2) Supra-National Regulations;289
14.3.2.1; (a) EU Civil Justice Acts;289
14.3.2.2; (b) Other Structures and Models;292
14.3.3; (3) Issues for the Legislator;294
14.4; (D) E-Justice and Innovation;297
14.4.1; (1) General Perspective: What is the Crux?;297
14.4.2; (2) EU Perspective: An Easy Fix or a True Change?;301
15; Litigation Costs and Procedural Cultures – New Avenues For Research in Procedural Law –;303
15.1; (A) Introductory Remarks;303
15.2; (B) Litigation Costs at the National Level;304
15.2.1; (1) Significance of Litigation Costs;304
15.2.1.1; (a) For the Users of Judicial Services;305
15.2.1.2; (b) For Third Individuals;306
15.2.1.3; (c) For the Providers of Judicial Services;307
15.2.2; (2) The Financial Risks of Litigation;309
15.2.2.1; (a) Court Fees;309
15.2.2.2; (b) Costs Arising from Taking of Evidence;311
15.2.2.3; (c) Attorney Fees;313
15.2.3; (3) Allocation of Financial Risks;315
15.2.3.1; (a) Allocation of Costs on the Demand Side;315
15.2.3.1.1; (i) Inter partes;316
15.2.3.1.2; (ii) Inter users;318
15.2.3.2; (b) Allocation of Costs on the Supply Side;319
15.2.3.2.1; (i) The allocation of costs on taxpayers;319
15.2.3.2.2; (ii) The limits of the allocation of costs to taxpayers in time of crisis;323
15.2.3.3; (c) Spreading Risks among Larger Groups;326
15.2.3.3.1; (i) Legal aid;326
15.2.3.3.2; (ii) Mutualising litigation risks among potential litigants;328
15.2.3.3.3; (iii) Litigation investors;330
15.3; (C) Litigation Costs in Cross-Border Cases;331
15.3.1; (1) Pre-litigation Costs;332
15.3.2; (2) Cost of Service;336
15.3.3; (3) Cost of Translation;337
15.3.4; (4) Cost of Applying and Proving Foreign Law;338
15.3.4.1; (a) Ex officio Application of Foreign Law;339
15.3.4.2; (b) Assessment of the Content of Foreign Law;342
15.3.4.2.1; (i) National practices;342
15.3.4.2.2; (ii) International and EU instruments;344
15.3.5; (5) Cost of Enforcement;348
15.4; (D) Conclusions;349
16; Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Effective Enforcement and Common Principles;353
16.1; (A) Introduction;353
16.2; (B) Rise and Autonomy of CDR;354
16.3; (C) Effective Enforcement;358
16.3.1; (1) A(C)DR;358
16.3.2; (2) New Approaches of Enforcement;361
16.4; (D) Common Principles, Standards or Rules;364
16.4.1; (1) ADR Directive;364
16.4.2; (2) Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution;366
16.4.3; (3) EU Collective Redress Policy;369
16.4.4; (4) Human Rights;372
16.4.5; (5) Administrative Justice;373
16.5; (E) Conclusion;377
17; The Need for Synergies In Judicial Cooperation and Dispute Resolution: Changes in the European Small Claims Procedure;379
17.1; (A) Introduction;379
17.2; (B) The Limited Success of the European Small Claims Procedure And The Reasons Behind Its Limited Use;381
17.3; (C) A Critical Analysis of the Recent Amendments of the ESCP Regulation;385
17.3.1; (1) Increasing the Economic Ceiling for Small Claims and Requiring Proportionate Fees;385
17.3.2; (2) Greater Use of Electronic Communications;386
17.3.3; (3) Extension of the Information Obligations;388
17.3.4; (4) The Enforcement Stage;389
17.4; (D) Obstacles in the Enforcement Process;390
17.5; (E) A Model of Cooperation Between the ESCP and Online Dispute Resolution;393
17.5.1; (1) The Need for Greater Synergy;393
17.5.2; (2) Pre-Action ODR;395
17.5.3; (3) Court-Annexed ADR Processes;396
17.5.4; (4) The EU ODR Platform;400
17.6; (F) Conclusions;401
18; Transplanting Best Practices from ADR Mechanisms to Court Proceedings in Cross-border Litigation?;403
18.1; (A) ADR Mechanisms and Court Proceedings: sometimes troublesome Synergies or Cross-fertilization?;403
18.1.1; (1) Synergies between ADR and Court Proceedings;404
18.1.2; (2) Transplants or Cross-fertilization between ADR and Court Proceedings to Overcome the Obstacles of Cross-border Litigation;408
18.2; (B) Best Practices in Business-to-Business Cross-border ADR Mechanisms: Lessons Learned from International Commercial Arbitration;410
18.2.1; (1) The Adjudicator Issue;410
18.2.2; (2) The Place for the Development of Proceedings;412
18.2.3; (3) The Issue of Language;413
18.2.4; (4) Case Management;414
18.2.5; (5) Costs;415
18.3; (C) Best Practices in C2B Cross-border ADR: Lessons Learned from Consumer Dispute Resolution Mechanisms;415
18.3.1; (1) Finding the Appropriate Body to Resolve a C2B Dispute;417
18.3.2; (2) Costs;420
18.3.3; (3) Duration;421
18.3.4; (4) Language;421
18.3.5; (5) The Issue of Enforcement;423
18.4; (D) Final Remarks;424
19; How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective enforcement in cross-border cases?;427
19.1; (A) The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net);428
19.2; (B) Judicial co-operation;428
19.3; (C) ADR entities and ODR-platform;429
19.4; (D) Enforcement and Consumer Protection Cooperation network;434
20; The Promotion of Best Practices in European Civil Procedure: Some Introductory Remarks;439
20.1; (A) Scope;440
20.2; (B) Legitimacy;441
20.2.1; (1) The Field is Occupied by European Legislation;441
20.2.2; (2) The Field is Occupied by National Legislation;442
20.3; (C) Mutual Trust;442
20.3.1; (1) When is there a need to further Mutual Trust?;443
20.3.2; (2) The Example of Judicial Expertise;444
20.4; (D) Identifying Best Practices;446
20.5; (E) Promoting Best Practices;449
21; European Order For Payment Procedure From the Businesses Perspective and Practice;451
21.1; (A) Context;451
21.2; (B) European Order for Payment Procedure: Practical Feedback from the Companies;452
21.3; (C) Best Practices in Companies Support;453
22; How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?;455
23; Incorporating European Uniform Procedures into National Procedural Systems and Practice: Best Practices a Solution for Harmonious Application;459
23.1; (A) Introduction;459
23.2; (B) Methodology;463
23.3; (C) European Uniform Procedures;464
23.4; (D) Implementation Within National System and Practice;468
23.5; (E) Use of the European Uniform Procedures;471
23.6; (F) Best Practices: a Way to Address National Differences;475
23.7; (G) Final Remarks;480
24; Approximation of Procedural Law in Europe;481
24.1; (A) Lecture in Milano;481
24.2; (B) The third World Congress of the IAPL;481
25; Index;485
