Simplified Procedure in Civil Proceedings in Different European Countries: Comparing Study

Abstract

In this article the simplified civil proceedings were analyzed as one of the most current discussion. Its characterization and difference from general action proceeding are debatable issues that need attention and in-depth study, especially in Ukraine, where the differentiation of action proceedings was first introduced in 2017.
 This background requires the comparing research of the doctrine and legislative of European countries such as Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and France, which have been selected for comparison, as well as the European Small Claims Procedure, which has been in existence alongside national small dispute resolution procedures for over ten years.
 The most generalizable features that appear to be inherent in any simplification of court proceedings were studied, in particular, the time frames for simplified litigation, whether or not to hold hearings, the possibility of appeal and mandatory representation in these proceedings.
 In conclusion, it was noted that the elements of simplifying the procedure for small cases resolution in Ukraine and in other European countries generally coincide. Among the similarity there are the features of securing the right to an oral or public court hearing on the case, a certain limitation of the right to appeal the decision in the case, the absence of compulsory representation, even in the conditions of compulsory representation of the parties in court by a lawyer. At the same time, the lack of standardized forms of appeal to the court in the simplified procedure, as well as the approaches to the procedure of the choice of the procedure of the case - are excluded by the parties, both in the European Small Claims Procedure and in Germany, to the excluded right of a judge to decide this issue. how it is envisaged in Lithuania. It is useful to borrow, in our opinion, the experience of Spain and France, in which the collection of small debts is the responsibility of the bailiff and the notary. Thus, a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with small or small matters should be established and maintained in the state.