Harmonisation Of Civil Procedure Research Articles

About ELI-Unidroit Rules Adoption and Translation into Ukrainian

The Model European Rules of Civil Procedure prepared by the European Law Institute with the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law during 2013-2021 have a great potential impact on the harmonisation of civil procedure and have attracted the attention of scholars from all over the world. For Ukraine, as well as for other EU entrance candidate countries, these Rules are an opportunity to harmonise the national civil process with EU law and create the necessary basis for the adaptation of European law and EU membership. In view of this, the preparation of their official translation into Ukrainian, which will be carried out is a relevant issue. To properly implement this task, a scientific council has been formed, which includes leading Ukrainian scientists and specialists in the field of civil procedure. Moreover, in order to methodologically support the translation process, ensure terminological consistency and uniformity, a terminological English-Ukrainian glossary of Model Rules of Civil Procedure is being compiled in parallel with the translation process. Establishing methodological basis of translation and careful choosing sources of reference is another important condition for quality translation. See more about Ukrainian translation of the Rules in this note.

An Approximation and a Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in the Еuropean Union

An Approximation and a Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in the Еuropean Union

The Real (New) Deal: Levelling the Odds for Consumer-Litigants On the Need for a Modernisation, Part II

With its New Deal proposals, the European Commission aimed to secure that all consumers “fully benefit from their rights under Union law”. We argue that such commitment requires taking a step back from an exclusive focus on enforcement, to tackle challenges to the justiciability of consumer rights. Consumers must be seen both in their role as claimants and when they act as defendants. By means of a case-study threading together the main developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning procedural guarantees for consumers from the past year, we seek to highlight the shortcomings of the current reliance on ‘judicial harmonisation’. The identified shortcomings, we claim, show that limited harmonisation of civil procedure is required, with regard to establishing minimum protective standards in cases involving consumers. For interested readers, we also list a number of specific issues that we think such harmonisation should engage with.

Towards ELI-Unidroit Model Rules of Civil Procedure: Basic Premises and Challenges

At the end of 2013, the joint work of the European Law Institute (ELI) and Unidroit to create European Rules of Civil Procedure was initiated.This ambitious soft law project builds on the American Law Institute (ALI)-Unidroit Principles on Transnational Civil Procedure that were adopted in 2004. Taking into account the binding EU acquis and pertinent sources of EU law and common traditions in Europe it aims to provide a set of rules to be used by the European legal community. This working paper presents the current state of affairs in the European harmonisation of civil procedure sketching the legal and political context in which the project takes place, and outlines the basic premises of the ELI-Unidroit project and highlights some of the major challenges. It was presented at the Bay Area Civil Procedure Forum (Hastings, April 2016).

International Association of Procedural Law

At the initiative of the Moscow state university, and especially dmitry Maleshin, the International Association of Procedural Law held its annual conference for the first time in Moscow on 18–21 september 2012. the main topic of this conference was ‘Civil procedure in cross-cultural dialogue’. this event was successful. delegates from all around the world discussed such topics as Dispute Resolution in Different Societies: formal and informal procedures; Goals of Civil Justice; Civil Procedural Systems: pro and contra; Cultural Dimension of Group Litigation; and Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in Eurasia. the history of the International Association of Procedural Law, founded in florence in 1950, is the history of a collective challenge. generation after generation for over sixty years, we are writing together this history like a novel chain. this writing of this history needs editorial supports everywhere in the world. It is the reason why, on behalf of the IAPL, I am very pleased to welcome the launching of the Russian Law Journal. this first russian law review published in English language will surely help to promote intellectual exchanges between proceduralists worldwide. opening the russian legal system to the world and, conversely, opening the world to the russian legal system are the two faces of an exciting challenge.

Harmonisation of Civil Procedure and Its Interaction with Substantive Private Law

This contribution deals with the interaction between procedural law and substantive private law in the context of a partially harmonised but mainly unharmonised substantive law. It also discusses civil proceedings dealing with matters not exclusively governed by domestic law. Procedural law should take into account that the applicable private law is often drafted or developed having regard to different rules of procedure (foreign private law) or without taking into consideration the existing rules of civil procedure. The author illustrates more specifically the possible problems with regard to (1) procedural rules concerning the availability of and access to procedures and the powers of courts, (2) the protection of defendants and (3) a change of parties or their rights under substantive law during the course of the proceedings.

Cross-Border Enforcement in the Eu: Mutual Trust Versus Fair Trial? Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure

The key question of this contribution is whether further harmonisation of civil procedure in the European Union is required as a consequence of the policy aim to fully abolish the exequatur, notably within the context of the Brussels I Regulation. Where cross-border litigation is traditionally resolved by private international law instruments, the abolition of the requirement of the exequatur as a common standard of existing enforcement regimes, necessitates a deliberation on harmonisation of certain elements of (national) civil procedure. The abolition of exequatur underlies the premise of mutual trust. However, without clear EU rules as to what constitutes a fair trial, mutual trust may not be more than a hollow phrase. This contribution addresses the current policy and regulatory framework regarding cross-border enforcement of judgments, the concepts of mutual trust and fair trial, and discusses the type of harmonised rules that are required to facilitate and legitimise the abolition of exequatur in order to enhance cross-border litigation.

Brief Considerations on the Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in Europe and Worldwide

Brief Considerations on the Harmonisation of Civil Procedure in Europe and Worldwide