Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Perspective on Recent Nordic Reforms of Civil Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Civil Litigation

Abstract

The civil justice systems of Denmark, Norway and Sweden have much in common even though they, unlike other important areas of law, have not been subject to a formal Nordic legislative cooperation. This paper explores recent reforms of civil justice in Denmark, Norway and Sweden from a comparative perspective. The purpose is to identify and compare the general purposes and fundamental values, as well as some important general principles behind these Nordic civil justice systems, and to discuss to what extent they reflect a common Nordic approach to civil justice. The analyses show that these civil justice systems today generally aim to fulfill the same purposes and are essentially based on the same fundamental values and general principles and that these purposes, values and principles largely reflect a common Nordic approach to civil justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The analyses in this paper will not comprise the civil justice systems of Finland and Iceland .

  2. 2.

    See Chap. 2.2, infra.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 2.2.4, infra.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 2.3, infra.

  5. 5.

    See, inter alia, Tamm (1972), p. 175 et seq.

  6. 6.

    See http://nffp.info (last visited 10 August 2013) and Bylander (2013), pp. 337–342.

  7. 7.

    See, inter alia, Bernitz (2007) and Tamm (1998).

  8. 8.

    See, inter alia, Jolowicz (2000), p. 7, and Chase (2005).

  9. 9.

    A general account in English of the Danish civil justice system can be found in Werlauff (2010).

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., Tamm (1969).

  11. 11.

    For an overview, see, e.g., Gomard and Kistrup (2007), p. 48 et seq.

  12. 12.

    See Act no 260 of 8 June 1979, which was based on two law committee reports (698/1973 and 871/1979).

  13. 13.

    See Act no 401 of 26 June 1998.

  14. 14.

    See Act no 402 of 26 June 1998.

  15. 15.

    See Section 43 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  16. 16.

    Law committee report 1398/2001.

  17. 17.

    See Act no 538 of 8 June 2006 (general reform of the court system).

  18. 18.

    See Act no 554 of 24 June 2005 (costs and legal aid), Act no 538 of 8 June 2006 (general reform of the court system), Act no 181 of 28 February 2007 (group actions), Act no 168 of 12 March 2008 (court-connected mediation) and Act no 1387 of 23 December 2012 (interim injunctions).

  19. 19.

    See law committee report 1479/2006 and Act no 520 of 6 June 2007 (lawyer’s practice), Act no 495 of 12 June 2009 (judges’ appearance in court meetings), report 1528/2011 and Act no 1242 of 18 December 2012 (service).

  20. 20.

    See law committee report (Norges offentlige utredninger) NOU 2001:32 (Part A), p. 124 et seq. For an introduction in English to the history of the Norwegian Civil Procedure Act of 1915, see, inter alia, Sunde (2011) and Fredriksen (2011).

  21. 21.

    See, inter alia, NOU 2001:32 (Part A), pp. 125–126.

  22. 22.

    See report NOU 1999:19 (Domstolene i Samfunnet).

  23. 23.

    The reform was enacted based on Ot.prp.nr. 44 (2000–2001) and Innst. O.nr. 103 (2000–2001). The reform is described in English by Backer (2011), p. 42 et seq. See also Rosseland (2007), pp. 608–628.

  24. 24.

    See report NOU 1999:22 (Domstolene i første instans).

  25. 25.

    See report NOU 1999:22, pp. 39–42.

  26. 26.

    See, inter alia, the government report St.meld. nr. 23, Førsteinstansdomstolene i Fremtiden (2001), Order no 1014 of 31 August 2001 and Order no 1494 of 16 December 2005 (Forskrift om domssogns—og lagdømmeinndeling) with subsequent amendments.

  27. 27.

    See report NOU 2001:32, (Rett på sak). Volume B, Chapter 2, includes a summary and overview in English of the report.

  28. 28.

    See Act no 90 of 17 June 2005 (Lov om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister).

  29. 29.

    For an overview of the Swedish court system in English, see, inter alia, Unknown (2007). An older comprehensive account in English of Swedish civil procedure can be found in Ginsburg and Bruzelius (1965).

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Modéer (1999), p. 400.

  31. 31.

    A law commission was established in 1911, which submitted its recommendations for a comprehensive reform in a report from 1926; see SOU (Statens offentliga utredningar) 1926:31–33, Processkommissionens betänkande angående rättegångsväsendets ombildning. Subsequently, another law commission was set up, which presented its recommendations in 1938; see SOU 1938:43–44, Processlagberedningens förslag till rättegångsbalk.

  32. 32.

    See, e.g., Gullnäs (1999).

  33. 33.

    See, in particular, prop. 1986/87:89 (Ett reformerat tingsrättsförfarande) and prop. 1988/89:95 (SFS 1989:656). See also the committee reports SOU 1982:25–26, SOU 1986:1, SOU 1987:13 and SOU 1987:46.

  34. 34.

    See prop. 2004/05:131.

  35. 35.

    See law committee report SOU 2012:93 (En modernare rättegång II—en uppföljning) and the comments to this report by Ekeberg (2013) and Levén and Wersäll (2011).

  36. 36.

    See Förordning (1982:996) om rikets indelning i domsagor as subsequently amended. See also, inter alia, SOU 1998:135.

  37. 37.

    See Chap. 2.4.6, infra.

  38. 38.

    See Act no 2002:599 (Lag om grupprättegång), which is based, inter alia, on prop. 2001/02:107 and SOU 1994:151.

  39. 39.

    See, inter alia, Prop. 2010/11:128, Medling och förlikning.

  40. 40.

    See, inter alia, Prop. 2007/08:113, Prop. 2009/10:181 and Prop. 2010/11:24.

  41. 41.

    The legislation incorporating the ECHR was adopted in 1992 Denmark, in 1994 in Sweden and in 1999 in Norway.

  42. 42.

    See, inter alia, Lenaerts et al. (2006), in particular Chaps. 2 and 3, Storskrubb (2008) and Hess (2012).

  43. 43.

    See www.eu-oplysningen.dk.

  44. 44.

    As an example, the Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) does not apply directly in relation to Denmark, but the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters makes the provisions of the Regulation applicable also in relation to Denmark.

  45. 45.

    See www.efta.int.

  46. 46.

    See, inter alia, Fredriksen (2008).

  47. 47.

    §1-1(1) of the Act. See also §1-1(2) of the Act mentioned infra, Chap. 4. The English translation is taken from NOU 2001:38.

  48. 48.

    See Couture (1950), p. 7.

  49. 49.

    See, inter alia, Jolowicz (2000), pp. 71–80, Skoghøy (2010), p. 3, and the works mentioned infra.

  50. 50.

    See, inter alia, Lindblom (1997), p. 606.

  51. 51.

    See, inter alia, NOU 2001:38, vol. A, p. 128.

  52. 52.

    This has particularly been emphasized in Swedish legal doctrine; see infra.

  53. 53.

    See, inter alia, Bernitz (2007), pp. 20–23.

  54. 54.

    For a discussion of the limits for such judicial activity under Danish law, see, inter alia, Zahle (2005), pp. 134–150, and Gomard (1986).

  55. 55.

    For Denmark, see, inter alia, law committee report no 1401/2001, pp. 83–84, and Gomard and Kistrup (2007), pp. 19–23. For Sweden , see, inter alia, SOU 1982:26, p. 138; SOU 1994:99 (Domaren i Sverige inför framtiden), pp. 39–50; and SOU 2007:26, pp. 110–111.

  56. 56.

    For an overview of the different views, see, inter alia, Ekelöf and Edelstam (2002), pp. 13–30 (in particular, p. 20); Lindell (2012), pp. 21–29; Lindblom (1997), p. 606; Westberg (2012); and the contributions in Rättsfonden (1972). For an account in English, see also Lindblom (2007), pp. 281–310, and Storskrubb (2008), pp. 295–301.

  57. 57.

    This was, inter alia, the view of Swedish professor Per Olof Ekelöf; see Ekelöf and Edelstam (2002), pp. 13–30 (in particular, p. 20), and Lindell (2012), pp. 21–29.

  58. 58.

    Ekelöf and Edelstam (2002), p. 20.

  59. 59.

    See Lindell (2012), pp. 21–29. For an overview, see also Westberg (2012), pp. 53–77.

  60. 60.

    Lindblom (1997), p. 604 (footnote 39), and Westberg (2012), p. 57. The matter is briefly discussed, inter alia, in SOU 1982:26, p. 138; SOU 1994:99, pp. 39–50; and SOU 2007:26, pp. 110–111.

  61. 61.

    See, inter alia, Ekelöf and Edelstam (2002), pp. 13–30; Lindell (2012), pp. 21–29; Lindblom (2007), pp. 281–310; and Bertilsson (2010), pp. 31 et seq.

  62. 62.

    Westberg (2012), p. 57, notes that no Swedish scholars have presented empirical data to support their views on the general function(s) of Swedish civil justice. Professor Westberg has provided a comprehensive analysis of (manifest and latent) functions and dysfunctions of preliminary enforcement measures in Sweden in Westberg (2004). I have analyzed functions and dysfunctions of using preliminary injunctions to enforce intellectual property rights in Petersen (2008).

  63. 63.

    The obligation of judges to function as a mediator in civil litigation can be found in Chapter 26 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, Chapter 42 (Sections 6 and 17) of the Swedish Judicial Code and Chapter 8 (Sections 8-1 and 8-2) of the Norwegian Dispute Act. The special Norwegian rules on Concilliation Boards (Forliksrådet) can be found in Chapter 6 of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

  64. 64.

    See the general Norwegian reform of civil justice and Swedish Prop. 2010/11:128. The Danish Committee on Administration of Justice has announced that it will later look at the Danish rules on mediation by courts (forligsmægling); see Report no 1481/2005 on court-connected mediation.

  65. 65.

    For Denmark, see law committee report no 1481/2005 on court-connected mediation and Act no 168 of 12 March 2008. For Norway, see Section 8-3 et seq. of the Dispute Act. See also the contribution by Lin Adrian elsewhere in this book.

  66. 66.

    This legislation is widely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration .

  67. 67.

    See in this regard Westberg (2012), p. 76.

  68. 68.

    See in this regard Westberg (2012), p. 61.

  69. 69.

    See, inter alia, Directive 2008/52/EC of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, which, according to Article 1(1), has the objectives of facilitating access to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and promoting the amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging the use of mediation and by ensuring a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings. See the recent Directive on Consumer ADR (Directive 2013/11/EU) and the recent Regulation on Consumer ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) (Regulation No 524/2013). As explained in Sect. 2.4, supra, these initiatives do not directly affect Denmark and Norway.

  70. 70.

    For an overview of judicial review in Denmark, see, inter alia, Report no 1401/2001, pp. 88–91 and 135–142. For an overview of judicial review in Norway, see, inter alia, NOU 2001:32, pp. 193–202.

  71. 71.

    See, e.g., Westberg (2012), pp. 69–70.

  72. 72.

    For a comprehensive analyses in English about the role of judicial review in the Nordic countries, see the papers published in Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheder, vol. 27 (2009) Issue 2. See also Rytter (2001), pp. 137–174, and Lindblom (2000a), p. 335.

  73. 73.

    For a comparative (non-Nordic) introduction to this topic, see Sloss (2009).

  74. 74.

    See, inter alia, the Peterbroeck judgment of 14 December 1995, Case C-312/95, §12, which includes references to the previous case law of the ECJ on this matter, and the van der Weerd judgment of 7 June 2007, Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05, §28.

  75. 75.

    See NOU 2001:32, Bind A, pp. 149–150; NOU 2001:32, Bind B, pp. 649–651, prp. pp. 44 and 363 and innst. pp. 11–12. See also Schei (2007), vol. I, pp. 21–26.

  76. 76.

    See Schei (2007), vol. 1, p. 23.

  77. 77.

    Article 6(1) of the ECHR.

  78. 78.

    See, inter alia, the Danish law committee report no 1401/2001 (mentioned supra), pp. 83–86.

  79. 79.

    These values were also mentioned as “especially important” in the Norwegian report NOU 2001:38, p. 129.

  80. 80.

    Op. cit.

  81. 81.

    Op. cit., pp. 95–104.

  82. 82.

    This was one of the overall objectives of the reforms based on Rättegångsutredningen; see, inter alia, SOU 1982:26, pp. 13–16.

  83. 83.

    See SOU 2008:106 and Ds 2009:66.

  84. 84.

    For a discussion of this topic from a Nordic perspective, see, inter alia, Lindblom (2000b), pp. 105–155.

  85. 85.

    On these principles in Nordic civil procedure , see, e.g., Lindell (2012), pp. 101–124; Gomard and Kistrup (2007), pp. 500–541; and Skoghøy (2010), pp. 477–526. Compare Jolowicz (2000), pp. 175–182.

  86. 86.

    See also Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  87. 87.

    See, inter alia, Mantovanelli v. France (ECtHR judgment of 18 March 1997, AppNr 21497/93) at §33 and Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic (ECtHR judgment of 3 March 2000, AppNr 35376/97) at §40.

  88. 88.

    On the right to an “oral hearing”, see, inter alia, GÖÇ v. Turkey (ECtHR judgment of 11 July 2002, AppNr 36590/97) at §47 and Miller v. Sweden (ECtHR judgment of 8 February 2005, AppNr 55853/00) at §29.

  89. 89.

    See Chap. 2.1, supra.

  90. 90.

    On these principles in Nordic civil procedure , see, e.g., Lindell (2012), pp. 116–120; Gomard and Kistrup (2007), pp. 475–484 and 587–591; Skoghøy (2010), pp. 490–500; and Bylander and Lindblom (2005). See also Bylander (2006).

  91. 91.

    According to Section 65(1) of the Danish Constitution, all court proceedings are public and oral to the greatest possible extent in connection with the administration of justice. However, this provision does not exclude the use of procedural communications in writing to some extent. An overview of these particular constitutional issues can be found in law committee report no 1401/2001.

  92. 92.

    See, in particular, Danish report no 1401/2001, Swedish reports SOU 2001:103 and SOU 2012:93 and Norwegian report NOU 2001:32.

  93. 93.

    See, inter alia, Danish Report no 1401/2001, pp. 83–84, and Swedish prop. 2004/05:131.

  94. 94.

    See Chapter 10 of the Norwegian Dispute Act and chapter 39 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  95. 95.

    See Chapter 44 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act and the Swedish Act (1990:746) on orders to pay and assistance (betalningsföreläggande och handräckning).

  96. 96.

    As regards Denmark and Norway, see Sect. 2.2.4, supra.

  97. 97.

    See, inter alia, Lindblom (2001), pp. 157 and 166–167.

  98. 98.

    See Sections 9-4 and 11-6 of the Norwegian Dispute Act, Section 42:6 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure and Sections 353–354 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  99. 99.

    In Sweden , this is prepared by the Court; see 42:16 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. In Norway and Denmark, this is prepared by the parties; see Section 357 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act and Section 9–10 of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

  100. 100.

    See Section 21-8 of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

  101. 101.

    See, inter alia, Bulut v. Austria (ECtHR judgment of 22 February 1996, AppNr 17358/90), at §47.

  102. 102.

    See, inter alia, Garcia Ruiz v. Spain (ECtHR judgment of 21 January 1999, AppNr 30544/96), at §26, and Hirvisaari v. Finland (ECtHR judgment of 27 September 2001, AppNr 49684/99), at §30.

  103. 103.

    See, inter alia, Salov v. Ukraine (ECtHR judgment of 6 September 2005, AppNr 65518/01), at §89.

  104. 104.

    See Sections 218 and 218 a of the Danish Administration of Justice Act and Chapter 17 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure. See also Section 19-6 of the Norwegian Dispute Act.

  105. 105.

    Recommendation No. R (95) 5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and procedures in civil and commercial cases (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 1995).

  106. 106.

    See Section 368(1) and (3) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act. A leave to appeal is required only if the appeal concerns a district court judgment and the claim does not exceed DKK 10,000.

  107. 107.

    See Section 371 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  108. 108.

    See, in particular, Sections 225–227 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  109. 109.

    See Sections 380–384 of the Danish Administration of Justice Act.

  110. 110.

    See Udvalget for bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene, Notat om adgangen til appel i civile sager (Danish Ministry of Justice,1 July 2013).

  111. 111.

    See Section 4-1 of the Norwegian Dispute Act. Many of these cases must first be presented before a Concilliation Board; see the rules in Chapter 6 of the Dispute Act.

  112. 112.

    Section 29-1 of the Dispute Act. In exceptional circumstances, a district court judgment can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court; see Section 30-2 of the Dispute Act.

  113. 113.

    See Section 29-13 of the Dispute Act.

  114. 114.

    See Section 29-13 of the Dispute Act.

  115. 115.

    See Section 30-4 of the Dispute Act.

  116. 116.

    See the rules in Chapter 10 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  117. 117.

    See Section 49:1 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  118. 118.

    See Section 49:12 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  119. 119.

    See Westberg (2012), p. 237.

  120. 120.

    See Section 49:14 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  121. 121.

    See Section 35:13 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  122. 122.

    See Sections 54:9–10 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  123. 123.

    See Section 56:13 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure.

  124. 124.

    As mentioned supra, a leave to appeal is required only if the appeal concerns a district court judgment and the claim does not exceed DKK 10,000.

  125. 125.

    See Lindblom (2007).

  126. 126.

    Compare, e.g., Chap. 1 of the UK Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the ALI/Unidroit Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (2004) and the current ELI-Unidroit Project “From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure”.

References

  • Backer IL (2011) The reform of Norwegian civil procedure. In: Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Beck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernitz U (2007) What is Scandinavian law? Concept, characteristics, future. Scand Stud Law 50:13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertilsson B (2010) Förändringstendenser i svensk rättskultur: Rättskipningens funktion och domarens roll. SvJT 23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylander E (2006) Muntlighetsprincipen. Iustus Förlag, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylander E (2013) Nordiska Föreningen för Processrätt och det tolfte nordiska processrättsmötet. SvJT 337–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylander E, Lindblom PH (eds) (2005) Muntlighet vid domstol i Norden. Iustus Förlag, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase OG (2005) Law, culture and ritual – disputing systems in cross-cultural context. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Couture EJ (1950–1951) The nature of judicial process. Tul Law Rev 25:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekeberg K-G (2013) En ännu modernare rättegång? SvJT 169–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelöf PO, Edelstam H (2002) Rättegång I. 8:e uppl. Nordstedts Juridik, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksen HH (2008) Tvisteloven og EØS-avtalen. Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap (TfR) 289–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksen HH (2011) German influence on the development of Norwegian civil procedural law. In: Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Beck, Tübingen, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg RB, Bruzelius A (1965) Civil procedure in Sweden. Columbia School of Law. Project on International Procedure. M. Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomard B (1986) Et retspolitisk program for dommerskabt ret. In: Højesteret 1661–1986. Special Edition of Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (UfR), pp 45–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomard B, Kistrup M (2007) Civilprocessen, 6th edn. Thomson, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullnäs I (1999) Om reformer under 50 år av RB. SvJT 428–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2012) Procedural harmonisation in a European context. In: Kramer XE, van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 159–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jolowicz JA (2000) On civil procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K et al (2006) Procedural law of the European Union, 2nd edn. Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Levén S, Wersäll F (2011) En modernare rättegång – hur har det gått? SvJT 18–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (1997) Processens funktioner – en resa i gränslandet. In: Festskrift til Stig Strömholm, vol 2. Iustus Förlag, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (2000a) The role of the Supreme Courts in Scandinavia. Scand Stud Law 39:325–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (2000b) Cilvilprocessens grundprincipper de lege ferenda. SvJT 105–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (2001) Reforms of civil procedure in Scandinavia. In: Andersen LL et al (eds) Festskrift til Bernhard Gomard. Thomson GadJura, Copenhagen, pp 153–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (2007) The growing role of the courts and the new functions of judicial process – fact or flummery? Scand Stud Law 51:281–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell B (2012) Civilprocessen, 3. uppl. Iustus Förlag, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Modéer KÅ (1999) Den Store Reformen: Rättegångsbalkens förebilder och förverkligande. SvJT 400–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen CS (2008) Immaterialrettigheder og foreløbige forbud. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rättsfonden (1972) Domstolarnas roll i samhället. Seminarium anordnat av Rättsfonden 27–28 oktober 1972 i Skokloster

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosseland A (2007) Presentation of the National Courts Administration and the Norwegian Court Reforms of 2002. Scand Stud Law 51:608–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Rytter JE (2001) Judicial review of legislation – a sustainable strategy on the enforcement of basic rights. In: Scheinin M (ed) The welfare state and constitutionalism in the Nordic countries, pp 137–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Schei T (2007) Tvisteloven: Kommentarutgave. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoghøy JEA (2010) Tvisteløsning. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloss D (2009) The role of domestic courts in treaty enforcement: a comparative study. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb E (2008) Civil procedure and EU Law, a policy area uncovered. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunde JØ (2011) Der organische Zusammenhang des Rechts: how the reception of Savigny came to influence legal reception in Norwegian law in the 19th and first part of the 20th century. In: Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Beck, Tübingen, pp 7–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm H (1969) Ideer og personer bag retsplejereformen. In: Borum OA et al (eds) Retsplejeloven gennem 50 år. Juristforbundet (DJØF Publishing), Copenhagen, pp 9–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm H (1972) De Nordiske Juristmøder 1872–1972. Nyt Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm D (1998) The Nordic legal tradition in European context – Roman law and the Nordic countries. In: Letto-Vanamo P (ed) Nordisk identitet – Nordisk rätt i europeisk gemenskap. Helsingfors Universitet (University of Helsinki), Helsingfors, pp 15–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Unknown (2007) The Swedish National Courts Administration. Scand Stud Law 51:630–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Werlauff E (2010) Civil procedure in Denmark, 2nd rev. ed. Kluwer Law International, Austin, DJØF, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Westberg P (2004) Det Provisoriska Rättsskyddet i Tvistemål - Bok 1, 2, 3, 4. Skrifter utgivna vid Juridiska fakulteten i Lund - Acta Societatis Juridicae Lundensis Nr 153-156. Juristförlaget i Lund, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Westberg P (2012) Civilrättskipning. Nordstedts Juridik, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahle H (2005) Praktisk retsfilosofi, 2nd edn. Christian Ejlers, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Studiestraede 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Clement Salung Petersen

Authors
  1. Clement Salung Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clement Salung Petersen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. JPS, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petersen, C.S. (2014). A Comparative Perspective on Recent Nordic Reforms of Civil Justice. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation