Conclusions

Abstract

In this chapter the studies are summarised, research questions are answered and the fruits of the project are presented. In the Nordic countries, the preparatory proceedings play a significant role. One reason for this weight is that there are no actual pre-action procedures in Scandinavia with the exception of Norway. Because of the lack of actual pre-action procedure one of the main functions during the preparatory proceedings is to clarify the subject of the dispute, sort out the disputed and undisputed facts and investigate if there are provisions for an amicable settlement. Current trends in Scandinavia include court-connected mediation (excluding Sweden) and friendly settlements particularly through judicial settlement efforts (Sweden including). Party autonomy and flexibility is also typical of the current Scandinavian preparatory procedure. All of these efforts target the effectiveness of preparatory proceedings. The common feature to the former communist countries that were researched seems to be that all of them are struggling with the change from the Soviet-influenced civil proceedings towards western party autonomy and an efficient preparatory stage. The old habits with the powerful and active judge are still deeply in the legal culture at courts and, despite of legislative reforms, the new type of preparatory stage seems not to work. This study aimed at throwing light on two different but special streamlines of European development in this field: one of them was the Nordic trend and the other was the development in Baltic and other former East-European countries that received EU membership in 2004. Even though the original roots of all chosen countries were close to each other (i.e. adopting the continental system), after World War II, the development of these procedural regimes took different directions, while they now face similar problems again. The study unveiled similar ways of thinking, at least at the legislative stage. Still, the previous directions of developments in civil procedural laws have resulted in different practical situations. Surprisingly, we do share the main problems and goals in both study groups. We share even partly the solutions, but we still differ in daily-life and practices.