Advertisement

Introduction to the Preparatory Stage of Civil Proceedings

  • Anna Nylund
Chapter

Abstract

The main hearing model used in civil proceedings may enhance the efficiency of civil litigation. The preparatory stage is a key ingredient in the model, enabling case management, clarification of issues and concentration of the case to the disputed questions. It may also facilitate judicial settlement efforts and early disposal of cases. In recent decades, the main hearing model has been implemented in several European countries that utilise common law, Nordic law, Germanic civil law and Romanic civil law. Moreover, international model principles of civil procedure are based on the model. The core assumptions of the preparatory proceedings are adapted to the local legal culture and tradition. Many of the former communist countries, by contrast, still have a piecemeal type of civil proceedings. The pleadings stage is followed by several short hearings where the evidence and arguments are collected. This introductory chapter introduces the reader to the assumptions and concepts behind preparatory proceedings and their role in the main hearing model. Other structures of civil proceedings are discussed briefly. The connection between promotion of amicable solutions through court-connected mediation and judicial settlement efforts and preliminary proceedings is also studied.

Keywords

Civil Procedure Legal Culture Communist Country Appellate Court Preparatory Proceeding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ALI/UNIDROIT (2004) Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (2004). Uniform Law Rev. 9(4):758–808Google Scholar
  2. Amrani-Mekki S (2010) The future of the categories, The categories of the Futur. In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law. Civil law and the future of categories. LexisNexis, Markham, pp 247–266Google Scholar
  3. Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure. Fundamentals of the new system. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews N (2013) Andrews on civil processes, vol I Civil Proceedings. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadiet L (2010) Avenir des catégories, catégories de l’avenir: perspectives. In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law. Civil law and the future of categories. LexisNexis, Markham, pp 635–656Google Scholar
  6. Cappelletti M, Garth BG (1987) Introduction – policies, trends and ideas in civil procedure. In: Cappelletti M (ed) International encyclopedia of comparative law, vol XVI civil procedure. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase OG, Walker J (2010) Introduction. In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law, civil law and the future of categories. LexisNexis, Markham, pp li–lxviiiGoogle Scholar
  8. Damaška MR (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  9. Damaška M (2010) The common law / civil law divide: residual truth of a misleading distinction. In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law. Civil law and the future of categories. LexisNexis, Markham, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  10. Díez-Picazo Giménez I (2005) The principal innovations of Spain’s recent civil procedure reforms. In: Trocker N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. G. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 33–66Google Scholar
  11. Ervo L (2013) Changing civil proceedings - court service or state economy. In: Nekrošius V (ed) Recent trends in economy and efficiency of civil procedure. Vilnius University Press, Vilnius, pp 51–71Google Scholar
  12. Ervo L (2014) Nordic court culture in progress: historical and futuristic perspectives. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Access to court and court-annexed mediation in the Nordic countries. Springer, Cham, pp 383–408Google Scholar
  13. Ervo L (2015) Comparative analysis between East-Scandinavian countries. Scandinavian Stud Law 61:135–152Google Scholar
  14. Friedenthal JH, Kane MK, Miller AR (2005) Civil procedure, 4th edn. West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  15. Galič A (2014) Does a decision of the supreme court denying leave to appeal need to contain reasons? In: Adolphsen J, Goebel J, Haas U, Hess B, Kolmann S, Würdinger M (eds) Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München, pp 159–173Google Scholar
  16. Galič A (2015) The aversion to judicial discretion in civil procedure in post-communist countries: can the influence of EU law change it? In: Bobek M (ed) Central European Judges under the European influence: the transformative power of the EU revisited. Hart, Oxford, pp 99–124Google Scholar
  17. Gensler SS (2010) Judicial case management: caught in the crossfire. Duke Law J 60:669–744Google Scholar
  18. Glenn HP (2010) A western legal tradition? In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law. Civil law and the future of categories. LexisNexis, Markham, pp 601–620Google Scholar
  19. Hazard GC, Taruffo M, Stürner R, Gidi A (2001) Introduction to the principles and rules of transnational civil procedure. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 33:769–784Google Scholar
  20. Kramer XE (2014) The structure of civil proceedings and why it matters: exploratory observations on future ELI-UNIDROIT European rules of civil procedure. Uniform Law Rev 12(2):218–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus RL (1993) Of babies and bathwater: the prospects for procedural progress. Brooklyn Law Rev 59:761–825Google Scholar
  22. Marcus RL, Redish MH, Sherman EF, Pfander JE (2009) Civil procedure. A modern approach, 5th edn. West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  23. Menkel-Meadow C (2001) Introduction. In: Menkel-Meadow C (ed) Mediation. Theory, policy and practice. Ashgate, Dartmouth, pp xiii–xxxviiiGoogle Scholar
  24. Murray PL, Stürner R (2004) German civil justice. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Prütting H (2002) Die Strukturen des Zivilprozesses unter Reformdruck und europäische Konvergenz? In: Gottwald P, Roth H (eds) Festschrift für Ekkehard Schumann zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 309–325Google Scholar
  26. Stürner R (2002) Zur Struktur des europäischen Zivilprozesses. In: Roth H, Gottwald P (eds) Festschrift für Ekkehard Schumann zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 491–505Google Scholar
  27. Stürner R (2005) The principles of transnational civil procedure. An introduction to their basic conceptions. Rabels Zeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 69:201–254Google Scholar
  28. Taruffo M (2010) Some remarks about procedural models. In: Walker J, Chase OG (eds) Common law. Civil law and the future of categories . LexisNexis, Markham, pp 621–628Google Scholar
  29. Trocker N, Varano V (2005) Concluding remarks. In: Trocker N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. G. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 243–267Google Scholar
  30. Uzelac A (2010) The survival of the third tradition? Supreme Court Law Rev 49:377–396Google Scholar
  31. Uzelac A (2014) Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in the contemporary world. Global developments – towards harmonization (and back). In: Uzelac A (ed) Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in contemporary judicial systems. Springer, Cham, pp 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Varano V (1997) Civil procedure reform in Italy. Am J Comp Law 45:657–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Woolf BH (1996) Access to justice: final report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales. HIMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Zuckerman AAS (2005) Court control and party compliance - the quests for effective litigation management. In: Trocker N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. G. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 143–161Google Scholar
  35. Zuckerman AAS (2013) The revised CPR 3.9: a coded message demanding articulation. Civ Justice Q 32(2):123–138Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of Tromsø – The Arctic University of NorwayTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations