Advertisement

The Preparatory Stage of Civil Proceedings in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Halfway There Yet?

  • Aleš Galič
Chapter

Abstract

Although the legislatures of the three discussed countries are aware of the importance of a focused and thorough preparation of the main hearing, the achieved results so far have not been satisfactory. The reasons for this are manifold, ranging from insufficient legislative reforms, inadequate application of these reforms in the case law to the persistent court culture, which favours neither thorough preparation before the main hearing nor the idea of judicial discretion and procedural flexibility. There are deficiencies concerning procedural sanctions for noncompliance with the requirement of timely presentation of relevant material, whereby certain tools for preparation of the main hearing are inexistent altogether. In addition, courts have difficulties in striking a proper balance between the required burdens of the court and those of the parties and their legal counsel, as well as a proper balance between the system of preclusions and the need of flexibility.

Keywords

Czech Republic Alternative Dispute Resolution Civil Procedure Supreme Court Constitutional Court 
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. Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovenia – Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 29.5.2013, SWD(2013) 374 finalGoogle Scholar
  2. Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovakia -Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 29.5.2013 SWD(2013) 375 finalGoogle Scholar
  3. Betetto N (2007) Court-based mediation and its place in Slovenia. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Public and Private Justice. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 211–223Google Scholar
  4. Bobek M (2009) Quantity or quality? Reassessing the role of supreme jurisdictions in central Europe. Am J Comp Law 57(1):33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohata P (2003) Justizreformen in der Tschechoslowakei und ihren Nachfolgestaaten, Forost Arbeitspapier Nr. 16, Forschungsverbund Ost- und Südosteuropa, München. http://www.forost.lmu.de/fo_library/forost_Arbeitspapier_16.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  6. Cappelletti M, Garth B (1987) Introduction – policies, trends and ideas in civil procedure. In: Cappelletti M (ed) International encyclopaedia of comparative law, vol XVI, pp 2–82Google Scholar
  7. Cholenský R (2010) Mediation Country Report Czech Republic, JAMS International ADR Center Info Sheet. http://www.adrcenter.com/jamsinternational/civil-justice/Mediation_Country_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  8. Chrapková L (2010) Dokazovanie v občianskom súdnom konani (Česko-slovensko-nemecká komparaciá, Dizertačná práca. Univerzita Karlova, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  9. De Palo G, Trevor M (2012) The Czech Republic Mediation Act: a work-in-progress. Alternatives 30(5):110–113, http://www.chinagoabroad.com/en/article/czech-republic-mediation-act-work-progress-potential (accessed 10 August 2015)Google Scholar
  10. Drapál L, Bureš J (2009) Občanský soudní řád I., Komentář, 1. Vydání, C. H. Beck, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  11. Dvořák B (2012) Die Entwicklung des tschehischen Zivilprozessrechts seit dem Jahre 1989. In: Sutter-Somm T, Harsagy V (eds) Die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Mitteleuropa um die Jahrtausendwende. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 123–136Google Scholar
  12. Final Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on Slovakia’s 2013 national reform programme and delivering a Council opinion on Slovakia’s stability programme for 2012-2016 {SWD(2013) 375 final}, Brussels, 29.5.2013 COM(2013) 375. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/nd/csr2013_slovakia_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  13. Hamuľáková K (2010) Zásada koncentrace řízení a její uplatnění v civilním soudním řízení. Vyd. 1, Leges, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  14. Heyninck B (2012) The Czech Republic. In: De Palo G, Trevor M (eds) EU mediation law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 59–73Google Scholar
  15. Jelačin M (2008) Novela ZPP-D, njene skrite pasti in pravne praznine. Pravna praksa 25:9–10Google Scholar
  16. Juhart J (1961) Civilno procesno pravo FLRJ. Univerzitetna Založba, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  17. Juráš M (2011) Odpovědnost účastníků civilního soudního řízení za spravedlivý proces - proces bez zbytečných průtahů. In: Kotásek J et al (eds) Dny práva 2011, Právo na spravedlivý proces, Acta Universitatis Brunensis – Iuridica; Spisy Právnické fakulty, vol 416. Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, pp 131–141Google Scholar
  18. Juráš M (2013) Aktivní role soudu při zjišťování skutkového stavu v civilním sporu. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislavské právnické fórum 2013:286–295Google Scholar
  19. Kamhi S (1957) Građanski sudski postupak. SarajevoGoogle Scholar
  20. Kengyel M (2000) Die Zukunft des ungarischen Zivilprozessrechts nach der Zivilverfahrensnovelle 1999. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 5:361–375Google Scholar
  21. Kranjc J (1993) Probleme der Übernahme ausländischer Rechtssätze in nationale Rechtssysteme. WiRO (Wirtschaft und Recht in Osteuropa) 409–413Google Scholar
  22. Kühn Z (2008) The authoritarian legal culture at work: the passivity of parties and the international statements of Supreme Courts. Croatian Yearb Eur Law Pol 2:19–26Google Scholar
  23. Kühn Z (2011) The Judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe: mechanical jurisprudence in transformation. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kutlik F (2012) Slovakia. In: De Palo G, Trevor M (eds) EU mediation law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 301–316Google Scholar
  25. Magurová H (2013) Ako kvalifikovat’ neodržanie povinnosti, ktorú predsedovi senátu alebo samosudcovi ustanovuje §118 ODS. 2 O.S.P.? Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislavské právnické fórum 2013:326–330, http://www.lawconference.sk/archiv/bpf_2013/sprava/files/zborniky/Session%20of%20Civil%20Law.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)Google Scholar
  26. National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic (2014) Office of the Government of the Czech Republic. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2014/nrp2014_czech_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  27. Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 2013Google Scholar
  28. Nový Z (2009) Občanské právo procesní. In: Bobek M, Molek P, Šimíček V (eds) Komunistické právo v Československu. Kapitoly z dějin bezpráví (Communist Law in Czechoslovakia – Chapters from the History of Injustice), Mezinárodní politologický ústav, Masarykova univerzita, pp 513–552Google Scholar
  29. Přibáň J (2002) Judicial power vs. democratic representation. In: Sadurski W (ed) Constitutional justice, east and west: democratic legitimacy and constitutional courts in post-communist Europe in a comparative perspective, law and philosophy library, vol 62. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 373–394Google Scholar
  30. Rechberger W (2008) Die Ideen Franz Kleins und ihre Bedeutung für die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Europa. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 25:101–110Google Scholar
  31. Ristin G (2011) New legislation on alternative dispute resolution in the Republic of Slovenia. Croatian Arbitr Yearb 18:143–149Google Scholar
  32. Schelleová I, Schelle K (2005) Úvod do civilního řízení, 1 vyd. Eurolex Bohemia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  33. Šínová R (2014) Srovnání změn v civilním procesu v ČR a SR, Pravni prostor, 04.09.2014, http://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/procesni-pravo/k-srovnani-zmen-v-civilnim-procesu-v-cr-a-sr (accessed 10 August 2015)
  34. Števček M (2008) Poučovacia povinnosť súdu a koncentrácia civilného súdneho konania po ostatnej novele OSP v prospektívnej anticipácii vývoja civilného procesného práva. In: Dny práva - Days of Law. Masarykova Univerzita, Brno, pp 1008–1011Google Scholar
  35. Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice - Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session in Venice, 17-18 December 2010, Strasbourg, 27 January 2011, Study No 538/2009. http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)039rev-e (accessed 10 August 2015)
  36. Svoboda K (2008) Další novela OSŘ – změny v režimech koncentrace, Právní zpravodaj [online] 10. 5. 2008Google Scholar
  37. Svoboda K (2009) Pár poznámek k novému režimu koncentrace civilního sporu. Bulletin Advokacie [online] 11:37–40Google Scholar
  38. Svoboda K (2013) Procesní vývoj povinnosti tvrdit a prokazovat, Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislavské právnické fórum, pp 394–397Google Scholar
  39. The EU Justice Scoreboard, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2015) 116 final. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  40. The functioning of judicial systems and the situation of the economy in the European Union Member States, Strasbourg, 15 January 2013; Report prepared for the European Commission (Directorate General Justice) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/cepej_study_justice_scoreboard_en.pdf (accessed 10 August 2015)
  41. Ude L (1988) Civilni pravdni postopek. ČZ UL, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  42. Uzelac A (2004) Accelerating civil proceedings in Croatia – a history of attempts to improve the efficiency of civil litigation. In: van Rhee CH (ed) History of delays in civil procedure. Intersentia, Maastricht, pp 283–313Google Scholar
  43. Válová I (2014) Roman Fiala znovu v čele Komise pro rekodifikaci OSŘ, Česká justice, 13. 3. 2014. http://www.ceska-justice.cz/2014/03/roman-fiala-znovu-v-cele-komise-pro-rekodifikaci-osr/ (accessed 10 August 2015)
  44. Varanelli L (2012) Sodišče in ocenjevanje dokazov v civilnem postopku. Pravna praksa 2:5–8Google Scholar
  45. Winterová A, Macková A (2012) Civil procedure - Czech Republic, International Encyclopaedia of Law, Suppl. 66. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan der RijnGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ljubljana, Faculty of LawLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations