Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings

  • 200 Accesses

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.

I am indebted to Helena Podveská, judge of the Hodonín District Court, the Czech Republic, for her extensive and valuable comments on the draft of this chapter; all errors are, of course, my own.

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.

    See e.g. Rechberger (2008), p. 108, Dvořák (2012), p. 123.

  2. 2.

    The Hungarian Civil Procedure Act of 1911 was perceived as a “middle way” between the Franz Klein’s concept of active judge, concentration, orality and co-operation between the court and the parties and the more adversarial traditional German model. See Rechberger (2008), p. 108, Kengyel (2000), p. 361

  3. 3.

    Juhart (1961), p. 21.

  4. 4.

    Cappelletti and Garth (1987), p. 13.

  5. 5.

    Schelleová and Schelle (2005), p. 47.

  6. 6.

    Winterová and Macková (2012), p. 14.

  7. 7.

    Winterová and Macková (2012), p. 15.

  8. 8.

    For Slovenia see Kranjc (1993), p. 413, for CSSR see Dvořák (2012), p. 124.

  9. 9.

    Dvořák (2012), p. 124.

  10. 10.

    There was merely one reference to “socialist morality”; Art. 3/3 of the CPA-1976.

  11. 11.

    Nový (2009), pp. 530 ff.

  12. 12.

    See Nový (2009), pp. 535–536. It was typical for the soviet-style civil procedure that that the judge could prevent parties from settling the case if he found that this contravened “their best interest or the general interest”. Cf. e.g. Nový (2009), pp. 519 and 523.

  13. 13.

    Nový (2009), p. 537.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Nový (2009), pp. 524 ff.

  15. 15.

    Občanský soudní řád, zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. (in Czech); Občiansky súdny poriadok, zákon č. 99/1963 Zb. (in Slovak).

  16. 16.

    Bohata (2003), p. 15.

  17. 17.

    For such an ideological foundation concerning the doctrine of the primacy of the material truth see Kamhi (1957), pp. 22–24.

  18. 18.

    Uzelac (2004), p. 295.

  19. 19.

    The EU Justice Scoreboard (2015), pp. 8–10.

  20. 20.

    Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovenia (2013), p. 30, Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovakia (2013), p. 30 and 31, The functioning of judicial systems and the situation of the economy in the European Union Member States (2013), p. 516.

  21. 21.

    The functioning of judicial systems and the situation of the economy in the European Union Member States (2013), p. 516.

  22. 22.

    Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovakia (2013), p. 30 and 31. See also: The EU Justice Scoreboard (2015).

  23. 23.

    See the text of the Act and the chronological list of amendments since 1963, available at: http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/1963-99.

  24. 24.

    Dvořák (2012), p. 123.

  25. 25.

    Dvořák (2012), pp. 134–135, Nový (2009), pp. 550–552.

  26. 26.

    For Slovakia see: 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, for the Czech Republic see: 2014 Office of the Government of the Czech Republic National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic, p. 31.and its Annex No. 3. See also Dvořák , p. 136.

  27. 27.

    The text is available (in Slovak language) on: http://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/Download.aspx?DocID=414985. See also the explanatory memorandum: Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky, Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, p. 77.

  28. 28.

    See e.g. Válová (2014), p. 1, see also National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic 2014, p. 31 and its Annex No. 3 (Overview of impacts and a time schedule for the implementation of other measures).

  29. 29.

    See e.g. the Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice (2010), pp. 24ff; see also Kühn (2011), p. 196.

  30. 30.

    See Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice (2010), p. 55.

  31. 31.

    Bobek (2009), p. 64. This prompted the Czech Supreme Court to openly revolt against the Constitutional court’s decisions and its openly activist approach. Přibáň (2002), p. 380, Cf. Kühn (2011), pp. 138–141 and 159–161.

  32. 32.

    Art. 298/2 of the Si CPA, Cf. Art. 114a of the CzCPA. Art. 114 of the (old) SkCPA, Art. 157 of the new SkCPA.

  33. 33.

    Ude (1988), p. 218, Juhart (1961), p. 336.

  34. 34.

    Šínová (2014), p. 1.

  35. 35.

    Winterová and Macková (2012), pp. 109–110, Dvořák (2012), p. 133.

  36. 36.

    See e.g. Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky (2013), p. 77.

  37. 37.

    Šínová (2014), p. 1.

  38. 38.

    Some authors point out that a preparatory hearing due to its more informal setting, can be valuable for promoting settlements as well as for a more open discussion with the parties about further steps in a complex litigation. Cf. Drapál and Bureš (2009), p. 800.

  39. 39.

    Drapál and Bureš (2009), p. 778.

  40. 40.

    Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky (2013), p. 32

  41. 41.

    The generally applicable rule was that the parties were free to put forward all facts and evidence until the end of the evidentiary (main) hearing (so called “statutory concentration”; Zákonná koncentrace). Merely for certain particular types of proceedings the more restrictive rule applied was introduced in 2000 that all facts and evidence must be adduced at the first session of the main hearing at latest.

  42. 42.

    Amendment to the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP-D); Official gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 45/2008 (in force since October 1, 2008).

  43. 43.

    Such is also the official explanation of the novelty. See The Explanatory memorandum of the Slovenian Ministry of Justice to the draft amendment of the Civil procedure Act (2008), p. 136.

  44. 44.

    Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky (2013), p. 32.

  45. 45.

    Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky (2013), p. 32.

  46. 46.

    As explained above, since the 2009 reform the instrument of a preparatory hearing in the Czech Republic is reinforced by sanctions—if a preparatory hearing takes place, this (or when the 30 days time-limit after the conclusion of the preparatory hearing elapses, if the judge allows further written submissions) is in principle the final opportunity for the parties to bring forward new facts and evidence (Art. 114c and 118b CPA). However, the instrument of a preparatory hearing still does not produce the expected results.

  47. 47.

    E.g. the decision of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 289/2010 of 26 July 2012, Judgment of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 449/2008 of 10 July 2008, Judgment of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 1083/2007 of 10 March 2011.

  48. 48.

    Decision of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. III Ips 14/2010 of 20 December 2011. (Judgment of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 197/2009 of 7 April 2011). A motion that the expert should supplement his expert opinion (within limits of the initial thema probandum) does not count as a fresh proposal for evidence (Judgment of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 191/2007 of 16 December 2009). What is stressed is also the inherent link between the duty of the judge to pose adequate questions and promote clarification on the one hand and the effect of procedural preclusions on the other hand (Judgment of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 449/2008 of 10 July 2008).

  49. 49.

    This was the reason, why the so called “Eventualmaxime” was abolished in the past. On this topic see e.g. Juhart (1961), p. 75.

  50. 50.

    See, e.g., Decision of the Supreme court of Slovenia No. II Ips 302/2011 of 26 April 2012.

  51. 51.

    Magurová (2013), p. 326, Chrapková (2010), p. 117 et seq. See also Števček (2008), p. 1008 et seq.

  52. 52.

    Decision of the Supreme Court of Slovenia No. III Ips 2/2009 of 6 November 2009, Judgment of the Ljubljana Court of Appeals No. II Cp 942/2001 of 8 August 2001.

  53. 53.

    Svoboda (2009), p. 38, Drapál and Bureš (2009), p. 839.

  54. 54.

    The Slovenian Constitutional court stressed that if there is no proper activity (observations, hints, requests for clarifications and supplementations) from the side of the judge already in the written preparatory proceedings, sanctions of disallowing new facts and evidence before the first oral hearing cannot be allowed as well (decision No. Up-2443/08 of 7 October 2009). Following the same pattern, the Slovenian Supreme Court held that sanctions for belated submission of facts and means of evidence may not be imposed in cases where the court itself has delayed the proceedings because of insufficient judicial clarification and case management (Judgment No. II Ips 449/2008 of 10 July 2008).

  55. 55.

    For a plea that not only the court but the parties as well should contribute to the concentration and quality of proceedings and for more emphasis to be put on a preliminary stage of proceedings in the Czech Republic see Juráš (2011), pp. 131 ff.

  56. 56.

    For example, the rule that the judge has to forewarn parties about possible relevant legal aspects, which the parties haven’t thought of, is certainly a necessary precondition for safeguarding effective right to be heard. This requirement is not problematic in a court culture, where lawyers engage in thorough legal analysis of their clients’ cases in the first place. If however can dangerously distort the proportionate distribution of burdens between the court and the parties in an environment, where it is still quite common that lawyer do not engage in any legal research whatsoever. Sadly, in the three discussed countries there still are many lawyers who still perceive the rule of iura novit curia (the court knows the law) as if they are not expected to undertake a serious and in-depth legal analysis of the case by themselves in the first place Similar findings concerning inadequate perception of the rule of iura novit curia in the legal culture of post-communist states are given by Kühn (although the author argues that this is primarily on account of authoritative judges, and the passivisation of lawyers seems to be perceived merely as a necessary consequence thereof), Kühn (2008), p. 26.

  57. 57.

    Since the new Slovak CPA is (in the time of submitting of this paper) still not in force it is too early to assess how extensively the judge’s obligations, imposed by Art. 171 (stating which facts are relevant for the dispute, which are undisputed between the parties and providing preliminary legal evaluation) shall be construed.

  58. 58.

    For example, the judge should merely warn the parties e.g. that technical questions are concerned which calls for expert evidence and witness testimony, as proposed, is unlikely to be sufficient in such cases.

  59. 59.

    Svoboda (2009), pp. 38–39.

  60. 60.

    Svoboda (2013), pp. 394–397. See also Juráš (2011), pp. 131 ff.

  61. 61.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia No. Up- 2443/08 of 7 October 2009.

  62. 62.

    Jelačin (2008), p. 10.

  63. 63.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, No. Up- 2443/08 of 7 October 2009.

  64. 64.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, No. Up- 2443/08 of 7 October 2009.

  65. 65.

    Varanelli (2012), p. 6.

  66. 66.

    Hamuľáková (2010), p. 42, Svoboda (2008), p. 1, for a more critical view Juráš (2013), p. 288.

  67. 67.

    Kühn (2011), pp. 165–166.

  68. 68.

    Kühn (2011), p. XV and 165.

  69. 69.

    Art. 138 (zjavne nedôvodná žaloba) pursuant to which a judge may recommend the claimant to withdraw the manifestly ill-founded claim.

  70. 70.

    Art. 226 SiCPA.

  71. 71.

    Art. 236.a SiCPA.

  72. 72.

    Art. 154 SiCPA, Art. 255 new SkCPA, Art. 142 CzCPA.

  73. 73.

    Zakon o odvetniški tarifi, Official Gazette No. 67/2008.

  74. 74.

    Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 17. dubna 2013 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 25/12 ve věci návrhu na zrušení vyhlášky č. 484/2000, č. 116/2013 Sb.

  75. 75.

    Vyhláška Ministerstva spravedlnosti č. 177/1996 Sb. ze dne 4. června 1996 o odměnách advokátů a náhradách advokátů za poskytování právních služeb (advokátní tarif).

  76. 76.

    There exists merely a possibility for a party to ask the court to assist the parties in reaching settlement before bringing a lawsuit (so called: praetorian settlement attempt; pretorična poravnava, prétorský smír, see Kutlik (2012), p. 304. see e.g. Art. 309 of the SiCPA, Art. 67 of the CzCPA and Art. 67 of the (old) SkCPA. In the discussed countries, this instrument is almost never used in practice. Precisely for this reason the new Slovak Civil Procedure Act abolishes this instrument altogether. See Šínová (2014), p. 1. In addition, in the Czech Republic: the claimant is obliged, before filing the lawsuit, to call upon the defendant to fulfil her or his outstanding obligations; failure to do so may result in cost sanctions (Art. 142a CzCPA).

  77. 77.

    Slovenia: Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters Act (Zakon o mediaciji v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah), The Czech Republic: The Act on Mediation and Amendment of Certain Other Acts, Coll. 2012/2012 (Zákon o mediaci a o změně některých zákonů, zákon č. 202/2012), Slovakia: The Act No. 420/2004 on Mediation and Amendment of Certain Other Acts (Zákon č. 420/2004 Z.z. o mediácii a o doplnení niektorých zákonov).

  78. 78.

    Kutlik (2012), p. 304.

  79. 79.

    Kutlik (2012), pp. 303 and 313 ff., Cholenský (2010), p. 1.

  80. 80.

    Art. 305.b SiCPA.

  81. 81.

    Arts. 99 and 100 of the CzCPA (as amended through Art. 30 of the Mediation Act No. 202/2012). See in detail: Heyninck (2012), p. 61, De Palo and Trevor (2012), p. 11.

  82. 82.

    Art. 99 of Act No 99/1963 Rules of Civil Procedure as amended in 2012. Art. 170 of the new SkCPA.

  83. 83.

    Art. 305a–305c, SiCPA.

  84. 84.

    This is clearly evident also in statistics. Whereas in the late eighties’ only about 5 % of civil and commercial cases ended with settlement in court, the number has been constantly growing and in recent years, nearly 20 % of filed cases are settled—either by judicial conciliation or after being referred to court-connected mediation. See Ministrstvo za pravosodje, Sodna statistika za leto 2013, pp. 77 and 79.

  85. 85.

    Art. 100 of the old and Arts. 170 and 171 of the new SkCPA.

  86. 86.

    Art. 308 SiCPA, Art. 99 CzCPA, Art. 99 old SkCPA and Art. 148 new SkCPA.

  87. 87.

    See for the Czech Republic De Palo and Trevor (2012), p. 112, for Slovakia Kutlik (2012), p. 304 and for Slovenia Ristin (2011), p. 145.

  88. 88.

    Heyninck (2012), p. 60. Particularly for Slovakia, the EU Commission has found that alternative dispute resolution was not sufficiently used. See 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 (2013) at Par. 15.

  89. 89.

    Zakon o alternativnem reševanju sodnih sporov, Official Gazette RS, No. 97/2009.

  90. 90.

    Betetto (2007), p. 212.

  91. 91.

    Ristin (2011), pp. 143–149.

  92. 92.

    Whereas court-annexed mediation schemes in Slovenia are undisputedly successful, a downside is that precisely the success of mediation in courts, which is almost free of charge for the parties, makes it more difficult for private ADR providers to establish their activities on a market oriented basis.

References

  • Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovenia – Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 29.5.2013, SWD(2013) 374 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Assessment of the 2013 national reform programme and stability programme for Slovakia -Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels, 29.5.2013 SWD(2013) 375 final

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 211–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobek M (2009) Quantity or quality? Reassessing the role of supreme jurisdictions in central Europe. Am J Comp Law 57(1):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 2–82

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Chrapková L (2010) Dokazovanie v občianskom súdnom konani (Česko-slovensko-nemecká komparaciá, Dizertačná práca. Univerzita Karlova, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Drapál L, Bureš J (2009) Občanský soudní řád I., Komentář, 1. Vydání, C. H. Beck, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Hamuľáková K (2010) Zásada koncentrace řízení a její uplatnění v civilním soudním řízení. Vyd. 1, Leges, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyninck B (2012) The Czech Republic. In: De Palo G, Trevor M (eds) EU mediation law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 59–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelačin M (2008) Novela ZPP-D, njene skrite pasti in pravne praznine. Pravna praksa 25:9–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhart J (1961) Civilno procesno pravo FLRJ. Univerzitetna Založba, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 131–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Juráš M (2013) Aktivní role soudu při zjišťování skutkového stavu v civilním sporu. Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislavské právnické fórum 2013:286–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamhi S (1957) Građanski sudski postupak. Sarajevo

    Google Scholar 

  • Kengyel M (2000) Die Zukunft des ungarischen Zivilprozessrechts nach der Zivilverfahrensnovelle 1999. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International 5:361–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranjc J (1993) Probleme der Übernahme ausländischer Rechtssätze in nationale Rechtssysteme. WiRO (Wirtschaft und Recht in Osteuropa) 409–413

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 2:19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühn Z (2011) The Judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe: mechanical jurisprudence in transformation. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kutlik F (2012) Slovakia. In: De Palo G, Trevor M (eds) EU mediation law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 301–316

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • Návrh legislatívneho zámeru rekodifikácie civilného práva procesného, Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 513–552

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 373–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger W (2008) Die Ideen Franz Kleins und ihre Bedeutung für die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Europa. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 25:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ristin G (2011) New legislation on alternative dispute resolution in the Republic of Slovenia. Croatian Arbitr Yearb 18:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelleová I, Schelle K (2005) Úvod do civilního řízení, 1 vyd. Eurolex Bohemia, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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 1008–1011

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Svoboda K (2008) Další novela OSŘ – změny v režimech koncentrace, Právní zpravodaj [online] 10. 5. 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda K (2009) Pár poznámek k novému režimu koncentrace civilního sporu. Bulletin Advokacie [online] 11:37–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Svoboda K (2013) Procesní vývoj povinnosti tvrdit a prokazovat, Zborník z medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie Bratislavské právnické fórum, pp 394–397

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • 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)

  • Ude L (1988) Civilni pravdni postopek. ČZ UL, Ljubljana

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 283–313

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Varanelli L (2012) Sodišče in ocenjevanje dokazov v civilnem postopku. Pravna praksa 2:5–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterová A, Macková A (2012) Civil procedure - Czech Republic, International Encyclopaedia of Law, Suppl. 66. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan der Rijn

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law, Poljanski nasip 2, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Aleš Galič

Authors
  1. Aleš Galič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleš Galič .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law,Psychology and Social Work, 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

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galič, A. (2016). The Preparatory Stage of Civil Proceedings in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Halfway There Yet?. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29323-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29325-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation