The Metamorphoses of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure: The Challenges of New Paradigms—Unity and Diversity

  • Alan UzelacEmail author
  • Cornelis Hendrik (Remco) van Rhee
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)


In 1975, Mauro Cappelletti predicted a profound transformation in the area of civil justice. In his view, the complexity of contemporary societies required new and enhanced methods of dispute resolution since the traditional means were increasingly insufficient to address societal (and even civilizational) challenges. It is questionable, however, whether this transformation has indeed occurred. In order to evaluate Cappelletti’s prediction, the present contribution addresses a selection of changes in the area of civil justice that have occurred since Cappelletti’s prediction and tries to identify the driving forces of change. Subsequently it identifies seven main transformation areas in civil procedure, evaluating both their present impact on civil justice and their possible future effects. The relevant areas are (1) Transformation by borrowing from national and transnational sources; (2) Transformation by technological modernization; (3) Transformation by the reorganization of courts and a redefinition of court functions; (4) Transformation by the establishment of a multi-dimensional procedure for civil cases; (5) Transformation by the pursuit of alternatives to litigation; (6) Transformation by the collectivization of decision-making processes; and (7) Transformation by ‘dejudicialization’ (privatization, outsourcing) of judicial tasks. The contribution serves as an introduction to the papers collected in the present volume, written by authors from a wide variety of jurisdictions in Europe and around the globe.


  1. AIA (2008) Association for international arbitration (ed). In: The new EU directive on mediation. Maklu, Antwerpen-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  2. ALI/UNIDROIT (2006) Principles of transnational civil procedure. Cambridge UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure: fundamentals of the new civil justice system. Oxford UP, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Cappelletti M (1975) La protection d’intérêts collectifs et de groupe dans le procès civil (Métamorphoses de la procédure civile). Revue internationale de droit comparé 27(3):571–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of Europe (1984) Principles of civil procedure. Recommendation No. R(84), 5, Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  6. Deguchi M, Storme M (2008) The reception and transmission of civil procedural law in the global society. Maklu, Antwerpen-ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  7. De Palo G, et al (2014) ‘Rebooting’ the mediation directive: assessing the limited impact of its implementation and proposing measures to increase the number of mediations in the EU. European Parliament Studies, Brussels – PE 493.042Google Scholar
  8. Fabri M, Langbroek PM (2000) The challenge of change for European judicial systems: developing a public administration perspective. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Washington, Tokyo, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Freudenthal M (2010) Attitudes of EU MS towards the harmonisation of civil procedure. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability. Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  10. Galič A (2013) Ograničenje mogućnosti iznošenja novota i cilj građanskoga parničnog postupka. In: Uzelac et al (eds) Djelotvorna pravna zaštita u pravičnom postupku. Izazovi pravosudnih transformacija na jugu Europe. Liber amicorum Mihajlo Dika. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, pp 95–116Google Scholar
  11. Gottwald P (2010) Litigation in England and Germany. Gieseking, BielefeldGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottwald P, Klicka T (2002) Procedural law on the threshold of a new millenium. CLC, WienGoogle Scholar
  13. Harsági V, Van Rhee CH (2014) Multi-party redress mechanisms in Europe: squeaking mice. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Hazard GC Jr, Taruffo M, Sturner R et al (2001) Introduction to the principles and rules of transnational civil procedure. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 33:769–782Google Scholar
  15. Hodges C, Vogenauer S, Tulibacka M (2010) The costs and funding of civil litigation. Hart, Oxford and PortlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodges C, Benöhr I, Creutzfeldt-Banda N (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Civil Justice Systems. CH Beck, Hart, NomosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kengyel M, Nemessányi Z (2012) Electronic technology and civil procedure. Springer, New York and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramer XE (2010) Enhancing enforcement in the EU. The European order for payment procedure and its implementation in the member states. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds). Enforcement and Enforceability. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  19. Legrand P (1997) The impossibility of ‘legal transplants’. Maastricht J European Comp Law 4(2):111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lupoi MA (2014) Facing the crisis: new Italian provisions to keep disputes out of the courtroom (or take them out of it). ZZPlnt 19:95–108Google Scholar
  21. Manko R (2015) Europeanisation of civil procedure. Towards common minimum standards? EPRS, European Parliament, June 2015, PE 559.499Google Scholar
  22. Merryman JH (1985) The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal systems of Western Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Petrak M (2008) The procedural Ius commune as a source of contemporary law: a croatian example in a European context. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from Ius commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Picker C (2016) Comparative law as an engine of change for civil procedure. In: Picker C, Seidman G (eds) The dynamism of civil procedure—global trends and developments. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanders P (2004) The work of UNCITRAL on arbitration and conciliation. Kluwer, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwartze A (2000) Enforcement of private law: the missing link in the process of European harmonisation. European Rev Private Law 8(1):135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sorabji J (2014) English civil justice after the Woolf and Jackson reforms. Cambridge UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Storme M (1994) Rapprochement du droit judiciaire de l’Union europeenne/Approximation of judiciary law in the European Union. Nijhoff, Dordrecht-BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Susskind R (2003) Transforming the law: essays on technology, justice and the legal marketplace. Oxford UP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Susskind R (2008) The end of lawyers? Rethinking the nature of legal service. Oxford UP, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Teubner G (1998) Legal irritants: good faith in British law or how unifying law ends up in new divergences. The Modern Law Rev 61(1):11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trocker N, Varano V, De Luca A (2005) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  33. Tulibacka M, Sanz M, Blomeyer R (2016) Common minimum standards of civil procedure. European added value assessment annex I. EPRS, European Parliament, June 2016, PE 581.385Google Scholar
  34. Uzelac A (2008) Reforming mediterranean civil procedure. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality. From Ius commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerp, Oxford, Portland, pp 71–99Google Scholar
  35. Uzelac A (2009) In the quest for the Holy Grail of effectiveness. In: Council of Europe, The right to trial within a reasonable time and short-term reform of the European Court of Human Rights, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  36. Uzelac A (2010) Survival of the third legal tradition? Supreme Court Law Review, 49 S.C.L.R.(2d):377–396Google Scholar
  37. Uzelac A (2013) The European court of human rights. In: Wijffels AA, Van Rhee CH (eds) European Supreme Courts. A Portrait through History. Third Millenium Publishing, London, pp 274–284Google Scholar
  38. Uzelac A (2014) Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in the contemporary world. In: Uzelac A (ed) Goals of civil justice and civil procedure in contemporary judicial systems. Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, London, pp 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uzelac A (2017) Towards European civil procedure: rethinking procedural obligations. Hungarian J Legal Stud 58(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Uzelac A, Preložnjak B (2012) The development of legal aid systems in the Western Balkans. A study of controversial reforms in Croatia and Serbia. Kritisk Iuss. Utgitt av Rettspolitisk Forening (Liber amicorum—Jon T. Johnsen) 38(3–4):261–287Google Scholar
  41. Uzelac A, Garašić J, Maganić A (2013) Djelotvorna pravna zaštita u pravičnom postupku. Liber amicorum Mihajlo Dika. Narodne novine, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Dijk P, Van Hoof F, Van Rijn A et al (2018) Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights. Intersentia, AntwerpenGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Rhee CH (2004) The law’s delay. Essays on undue delay in civil litigation. Intersentia, Antwerpen, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Rhee CH (2005) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerpen, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Rhee CH (2011) Towards a procedural Ius commune? Russian Yearb Civ Proc Arbitr 7(8):201–217Google Scholar
  46. Van Rhee CH (2012) Harmonisation of civil procedure: an historical and comparative perspective. In: Van Rhee CH, Kramer XE (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. T.M.C. Asser Press, Springer, The Hague, pp 39–63Google Scholar
  47. Van Rhee CH (2014) Obligations of the parties and their lawyers in civil litigation. In: Adolphsen et al (eds) Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  48. Watson A (1974) Legal transplants. An approach to comparative law. University of Georgia, AthensGoogle Scholar
  49. Watson A (2000) Legal transplants and European private law. Electron J Comp Law 4/4Google Scholar
  50. Wijffels AA (2013) European legal history and the diversity of supreme judicatures. In: Wijffels AA, Van Rhee CH (eds) European supreme courts. 3rd Millenium Publishing, London, pp 14–37Google Scholar
  51. Zuckerman AAS (1999) Civil justice in crisis. Oxford UP, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Uzelac
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cornelis Hendrik (Remco) van Rhee
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Faculty of LawMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations