1 / 79

COMPARATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE

COMPARATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE. Prof. Dr. C.H. van Rhee remco.vanrhee@maastrichtuniversity.nl. SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS MODERN CIVIL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 3: APPROXIMATION. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS OF MODERN CIVIL PROCEDURE. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS

letson
Download Presentation

COMPARATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COMPARATIVE CIVIL PROCEDURE Prof. Dr. C.H. van Rhee remco.vanrhee@maastrichtuniversity.nl

  2. SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS MODERN CIVIL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CHAPTER 3: APPROXIMATION

  3. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS OF MODERN CIVIL PROCEDURE

  4. CHAPTER 1:ORIGINS • The origins of modern civil procedure • A Period before 12th century • B 12th century – ca. 1500 • C ca. 1500 – ca. 1800 • D ca. 1800-present

  5. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • A. Period before 12th century • Unsystematic - not learned • Popular – unprofessional • No distinction between civil and criminal procedure • Oral procedure • Irrational system of proof (ordeals)

  6. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • B. 12th century – ca. 1500 • More sophisticated society - “Renaissance” 12th c. • Important changes in legal field • Birth of modern system of procedure - Church

  7. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • B. 12th century – ca. 1500 • Romano-canonical procedure • Speculum Iudiciale – Durantis (13th c.) • Modernity – e.g. Actori incumbit probatio, etc.

  8. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • B. 12th century – ca. 1500 • Features of Romano-canonical procedure • Professionalisation (judges, attorneys) • Party autonomy • Writing • Sophisticated system of proof (“legal proof”) • Absence of immediacy • Appellate procedure (court organisation) • Role of legislation

  9. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • B. 12th century – ca. 1500 • Exceptional position England (itinerant, in eyre) • King’s Bench • Court of Common Pleas • Court of Exchequer • Main differences in procedure • Jury – Pre-trial & Trial • Oral • Immediate

  10. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • B. 12th century – ca. 1500 • Romano-canonical procedure in England • Court of Chancery • Star Chamber • Admiralty Court

  11. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • C. Ca. 1500 – ca. 1800 • Procedure loses cosmopolitan character • New ideas in period of Enlightenment • Increased party autonomy (control) • Orality and publicity • Free judicial evaluation of evidence • Systematic • Towards codification

  12. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • D. Ca. 1800-present • 1806 French Code of Civil Procedure • Based on 1667 Ordinance • General pattern – specific requirements • Liberal – individual responsibility • Passive judge • Civil litigation is battle • Exemplary Code • Geneva Code of Civil Procedure (1819)

  13. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • D. Ca. 1800-present • 1895 Austrian Code of Civil Procedure • Drafted by Franz Klein • Societal dimension of civil litigation • Active judge • Wahrheitspflicht (duty to speak the truth)

  14. CHAPTER 1: ORIGINS • D. Ca. 1800-present • 1998 English Civil Procedure Rules • First reforms 19th century (1873-75 Judicature Acts) • Nevertheless procedure highly adversarial • Excessive length and high costs • Lord Woolf: Access to Justice • Introduction of judicial case management • Pre-action protocols • Discovery = disclosure (limited) • Content pleadings (no notice pleading) • Witness depositions and cross-examination • Expert evidence (single joint expert) • Three procedural tracks (allocation stage) • High costs remain (why?)

  15. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT

  16. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • From ca. 1950: Growing Caseload in Western jurisdictions • Unwillingness to invest sufficiently in court system • Backlog causes alarm: Access of justice at stake (ECtHR) • Possible solution: judicial case management (also JCM)

  17. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Definition • Judicial system as a whole and • Courts in individual cases • Regulate content and progress of litigation • Usually in close co-operation with parties

  18. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Requirements for successful judicial case management • the civil procedure rules differentiate between different types of cases • these rules leave the judge the necessary discretion to manage individual cases and the caseload as a whole • this discretion can only be exercised to reach certain well-defined goals • the parties and their lawyers have a duty and the necessary incentives to co-operate • there are adequate sanctions in respect of parties and lawyers who refuse to co-operate • courts are provided with adequate resources (!!!)

  19. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT Some JCM in all legal systems and at all times JCM only described as such in case of a certain degree of judicial activity Two extremes: Adversarial and Inquisitorial models of civil procedure

  20. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Characteristics of Adversarial Systems • Parties and their counsel in control • Judge acts as passive umpire • Judge applies rules of the game, observes and decides • Judge active if rules ignored & when deciding • Lowest degree of activity

  21. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Adversarialism (general) • Da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius • Ne procedat iudex ex officio • Iudex secundum allegata et probata iudicat

  22. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Adversarialism (Germany) • Grundsatz der Parteiherrschaft • Dispositionsmaxime / Verfügungsgrundsatz • Verhandlungsmaxime / Beibringungs-grundsatz • Parteibetrieb • Adversarialism (France) • La neutralité du juge • Le principe accusatoire • Principe d’impulsion / principe d’initiative • Principe de libre détermination / principe dispositif

  23. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Adversarialism (Netherlands) • Principle of passivity of the judge (lijdelijksheidsbeginsel) • Adversarialism (Anglo-American world) • Sporting theory of justice (Pound)

  24. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Characteristics of Inquisitorial Systems • Judge in control of procedural and substantive matters • Judge follows own insights • Highest degree of activity

  25. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Prussian Algemeine Gerichtsordnung (1793) • Offizialmaxime • Offizialbetrieb • Untersuchungsmaxime / Inquisitionsmaxime • Associated with Inquisition and totalitarian regimes • Exception Continental Europe • Ius Curia Novit

  26. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Extremes do not exist • Why Anglo-American textbooks use ‘inquisitorial’ for Continental civil procedure • Concentrate on various phases of civil process • (1) the introduction of the action • (2) the delineation of the dispute • (3) the evidentiary stage • (4) the preparation for judgment • (5) the conclusion of the case.

  27. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT History of modern judicial case management starts in 1891 Replaces liberal procedural model of the French Code de procédure civile (1806) (La partie la plus diligente …) Franz Klein, Pro Futuro. Betrachtungen über Probleme der Civilprocessreform in Oesterreich (Leipzig/Vienna 1891)

  28. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Austria) Franz Klein, Pro Futuro ‘Der Jugend wird der Moralgrundsatz eingeprägt, man müsse auch dem Feinde in der Noth helfen, aber im Processe ist das etwas ganz Anderes! Der Process ist ein Krieg, in dem sich die Parteien als ingrimmig hassende, auf gegenseitige Vernichtung bedachte Feinde mit allen Mitteln niederzuringen bemühen – und dazu das Recht haben. Nicht ein Waffengang, wie etwa das Duell, mit einem Beisatze von Loyalität und Noblesse, welcher das Ausnützen widriger Zufälligkeiten, die den Einen treffen, verschmäht, nein ein Kampf, in welchem das Streben nach dem Sieg alle anderen Rücksichten verdrängt, alle edleren Regungen schweigen dürfen, so ziemlich Alles erlaubt ist, was nur nützt, und in dem man namentlich auch den Gegner ruhig sich verbluten sehen kann, ohne juristische oder ethische Hilfeleistungspflicht; sozusagen ein Krieg ohne rothes Kreuz.’

  29. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Austria) • Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (1898) • Leading principles Austrian Code • Sozialfunktion • Wohlfahrtsfunktion • Economic Principle

  30. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Austria) • Position of judge in Austrian Code • In charge of time limits • Warns for procedural errors • Has materielle Prozesleitungspflicht • Asks questions ex officio • May collect evidence ex officio

  31. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Austria) • Position parties in Austrian Code • Parties cooperate • Gegenseitige Unterstützung • Wahrheitspflicht • What aboutVerhandlungsmaxime (= party presentation)? • Allows judge incorrect, partially incorrect or unclear judgment (Klein)

  32. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT • Influence of the Austrian Model Abroad • - Germany • Emminger (1924) • Wahrheitplicht (1933) • Central and Eastern Europe • Scandinavia • Greece • Lichtenstein • Zurich • Italy? • France (juge de la mise en état)?

  33. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Germany) German ZPO (1877) Prozessforderungspflicht Formelle Prozessleitung (Prozessbetrieb) Materielle Prozessleitung Richterliche Aufklarungspflicht Frage- und Hinweispflicht § 139 ZPO: (1) In as far as necessary, the Court has to discuss the factual and legal aspects of the case with the parties and question the parties, to the effect that the parties explain all facts to be considered timeously and completely, especially to supplement insufficient information regarding the claimed facts, to identify evidence and make relevant applications. (2) ...

  34. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Germany) Sanctions in German ZPO (1877) E.g. Präklusion § 296 ZPO (1) Arguments and evidence to support a position, which is only presented after the expiry of the time limit set therefore … is only admitted if, according to the independent conviction of the court, such admission will not delay the finalization of the legal proceedings or if the party can sufficiently excuse the delay. (2) Arguments and evidence to support a position, which are not presented timeously … or of which … notice is not timeously received, can be rejected if their admission would, according to the free conviction of the court, delay the finalization of the legal proceedings and if the delay is based on gross negligence. (3) Objections relating to the admissibility of the claim, which could be waived by the defendant, which are not received timeously, are only admissible if the defendant can sufficiently excuse the delay.

  35. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) • French Code de procédure civile (1975) • Le différend est affaire des parties, le litige est affaire du juge? • Principes directeurs de procès • Articles 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 21 (judicial case management) • Articles 14, 16 (adversarial litigation) • Articles 1, 4, 5 (party autonomy) • Articles 2, 11, 15 (cooperation)

  36. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) See: Principes directeurs de procès of the French Code de procédure civile (1975) Article 3 The judge supervises the proper progress of the proceeding; he has the authority to define the time-limits and order the necessary measures. Article 7  (…) Among the facts mentioned in the debate, the judge may even take into consideration such facts that the parties have not expressly relied upon to support their claims Article 8 The judge may invite the parties to provide factual explanations that he deems necessary for the resolution of the dispute.

  37. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) See: Principes directeurs de procès of the French Code de procédure civile (1975) Article 10 The judge has the authority to order sua sponte any legally appropriate investigation measures. Article 12 The judge settles the dispute in accordance with the rules of law applicable thereto. He must give or restore their proper legal definitions to the disputed facts and deeds notwithstanding the denominations given by the parties. Article 21 To conciliate parties is part of the mandate of the judge.

  38. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) However, the principe du contradictoire (adversarial litigation) also needs to be observed. See the following Principes directeurs de procès of the French Code de procédure civile (1975). Article 14 A party may not be judged without having been heard or called. Article 16 In all circumstances, the judge must supervise the respect of, and he must himself respect, the adversarial principle. In his decision, the judge may take into consideration grounds, explanations and documents relied upon or produced by the parties only if the parties had an opportunity to discuss them in an adversarial manner. (…)

  39. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) Cf. also the following Principes directeurs de procès of the French Code de procédure civile (1975). Principe dispositif / principe d’impulsion (party autonomy) Article 1 Unless otherwise provided by law, only the parties may institute a proceeding. They may put an end to the latter prior to its extinction by virtue of the court's decision or by virtue of the law. Article 4 The subject-matter of the dispute is determined by the respective claims of the parties. The originating process and the defence submissions define such claims. However, the subject-matter of the dispute may be modified by the interlocutory claims where they relate to the initial claims by a sufficient link. Article 5 The judge must rule upon all what is claimed and only upon what is claimed.

  40. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (France) Cf. also the following Principes directeurs de procès of the French Code de procédure civile (1975). Principe de coopération (Principle of cooperation) Article 2 The parties conduct the proceeding under the duties incumbent upon them. They are held to carry out the pleadings according to the forms and within the required time-limit. Article 11 The parties are held to cooperate for the implementation of the investigation measures, even if the judge notes the consequences of abstention or refusal to do so. (…) Article 15 Parties must disclose in due time to one another factual arguments supporting their claims, the means of evidence they produce and the legal arguments they rely upon so that each party may organise his defence.

  41. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (England) Civil Procedure Rules (1998) for England & Wales Lord Woolf: Access to Justice Civil Procedure Rules (1998) Reduction of adversarial features: more judicial case management CPR in line with developments on Continent Overriding objective

  42. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (England) Civil Procedure Rules (1998) for England & Wales CPR 1.1 (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. CPR 1.4 (1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing cases. (2) Active case management includes encouraging the parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of the proceedings; identifying the issues at an early stage; deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others; deciding the order in which issues are to be resolved; encouraging the parties to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the court considers that appropriate and facilitating the use of such procedure; helping the parties to settle the whole or part of the case; fixing timetables or otherwise controlling the progress of the case; considering whether the likely benefits of taking a particular step justify the cost of taking it; dealing with as many aspects of the case as it can on the same occasion; dealing with the case without the parties needing to attend at court; making use of technology; and giving directions to ensure that the trial of a case proceeds quickly and efficiently.

  43. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Council of Europe) Resolution R (84) 5 on ‘Principles of civil procedure designed to improve the functioning of justice’ The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Whereas the right to justice guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is an essential feature of any democratic society; … Whereas, however, some rules of civil procedure used in member states may prove an obstacle in obtaining effective justice because, first, they may no longer meet the needs of modern society and, secondly, they may sometimes be abused or be manipulated to cause delay; Whereas civil procedure should be simplified and made more flexible and expeditious, while at the same time maintaining the guarantees provided for litigants by the traditional rules of procedure and maintaining the high level of justice required in a democratic society; Whereas, in order to attain these objectives, it is necessary to make available to the parties simplified and more rapid forms of proceedings and to protect them against abusive or delaying tactics, particularly by giving powers to the court to direct the proceedings more efficiently; Recommends that the governments of member states adopt or reinforce, as the case may be, all measures which they consider necessary to improve civil procedure, being guided by the principles set out at the appendix to this recommendation.

  44. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Council of Europe) Principle 1 1. Normally, the proceedings should consist of not more than two hearings, the first of which might be a preliminary hearing of a preparatory nature and the second for taking evidence, hearing arguments and, if possible, giving judgment. The court should ensure that all steps necessary for the second hearing are taken in good time and, in principle, no adjournment should be allowed except when new facts appear or in other exceptional and important circumstances. 2. Sanctions should be imposed when a party, having perhaps received notice to proceed, does not take a procedural step within the time-limits fixed by the law or the court. Depending on the circumstances such sanctions might include declaring the procedural step barred, awarding damages, costs, imposing a fine and striking the case off the list. 3. The court should be able to summon the witnesses and appropriate sanctions (fines, damages, etc.) should be applied in cases of unjustified non-attendance of such witnesses. … 4. …

  45. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Council of Europe) Principle 2 1. When a party brings manifestly ill-founded proceedings, the court should be empowered to decide the case in a summary way and, where appropriate, to impose a fine on this party or to award damages to the other party. 2. When a party fails to observe the duty of fairness in its conduct of the proceedings and clearly misuses procedure for the manifest purpose of delaying the proceedings, the court should be empowered either to decide immediately on the merits or to impose sanctions such as fines, damages or declaring the procedure barred; in special cases it should be possible to require the lawyer to pay the cost of the proceedings. 3. …

  46. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Council of Europe) Principle 3 The court should, at least during the preliminary hearing but if possible throughout the proceedings, play an active role in ensuring the rapid progress of the proceedings, while respecting the rights of the parties, including the right to equal treatment. In particular, it should have proprio motu powers to order the parties to provide such clarifications as are necessary; to order the parties to appear in person; to raise questions of law; to call for evidence, at least in those cases where there are interests other than those of the parties at stake; to control the taking of evidence; to exclude witnesses whose possible testimony would be irrelevant to the case; to limit the number of witnesses on a particular fact where such a number would be excessive. These powers should be exercised without going beyond the object of the proceedings.

  47. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (Council of Europe) Principle 4 The court should, at least at first instance, be empowered to decide, having regard to the nature of the case, whether written or oral proceedings, or a combination of the two, should be used except in cases expressly prescribed by law.

  48. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (PTCP) Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (PTCP) Standards for transnational commercial litigation Also for other types of disputes Reform projects Discretionary powers judge

  49. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (PTCP) Judicial Case Management Principle 14 (court manages case actively) Principle 22,2,1 and 2 (court invites parties to amend contentions of law or fact/offer additional legal argument and evidence) Principle 7,2 (parties must co-operate) Principle 17 (sanctions)

  50. CHAPTER 2: JUDICIAL CASE MANAGEMENT (PTCP) Principle 14 14. Court Responsibility for Direction of the Proceeding 14.1 Commencing as early as practicable, the court should actively manage the proceeding, exercising discretion to achieve disposition of the dispute fairly, efficiently, and with reasonable speed. Consideration should be given to the transnational character of the dispute. 14.2 To the extent reasonably practicable, the court should manage the proceeding in consultation with the parties. 14.3 The court should determine the order in which issues are to be resolved, and fix a time­table for all stages of the proceeding, including dates and deadlines. The court may revise such directions.

More Related