Advertisement

A New Model of Civil Litigation in Slovenia: Is the Slovenian Judiciary Prepared for the Challenges Presented by the New Law on Collective Actions?

  • Jorg SladičEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)

Abstract

Slovenia has adopted a new law on collective redress under EU, US, Dutch and Belgian influence. This contribution gives an overview of the new law. However, a static presentation of the law would not give a sufficient overview of the challenges faced by collective redress vehicles in Slovenia. Slovenian law is a mixture of a civil law system with a socialist heritage, which can be seen in the extreme formalism in the judiciary. Collective redress is a vehicle for the regulatory function in civil litigation. Yet, such a regulatory function is very much disliked in civil law jurisdictions. The main ingredient from the socialist tradition is a fear of collective redress, for collective redress is seen as regulation through litigation. Claimants and other litigants autonomously determine their future behaviour. Under the socialist heritage, higher court judges consider law as an instrument of class rule, perhaps even exploitation and alienation. Collective redress as defined by the regulation through litigation doctrine is indeed the very opposite of the socialist conception of law. Small individuals go against corporate Leviathans and force them by virtue of law to change their behaviour. In this contribution the author argues that collective redress will be perceived by the judiciary as a legal irritant, and it will not have a bright future.

References

  1. Amman O, Meier N (2017) Verhältnis von nationalem und internationalem Recht in den USA. Aktuelle juristische Praxis/Pratique actuelle juridique 26(1):90–98Google Scholar
  2. Babić B (2014) Zaštita kolektivnih interesa potrošača. Anali pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 62(2):215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bučan N (2013) The enforcement of EU competition rules by civil law. Dissertation Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/121821. Accessed 7 June 2018
  4. Camilleri E (2013) A decade of EU antitrust private enforcement: chronicle of a failure foretold? Eur Competition L Rev 34:531–537Google Scholar
  5. Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harvard L Rev 89(7):1281–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corapi D (2012) Class actions and collective actions. In: Fairgrieve D, Lein E (eds) Extraterritoriality and collective redress. Oxford U Press, Oxford, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  7. de Lara P (2013) Prendre le droit soviétique au sérieux. Revue internationale de droit comparé 65(4):879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Detterbeck S (1995) Streitgegenstand und Entscheidungswirkungen im Öffentlichen Recht: Grundlagen des Verfahrens vor den allgemeinen Verwaltungsgerichten und vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht. Mohr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  9. Djilas M (1956) Die neue Klasse, eine Analyse des kommunistischen Systems. Kindler, MunichGoogle Scholar
  10. Emmert F (2003) Administrative and court reform in central and eastern Europe. Eur Law J 9(3):288–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 99–124Google Scholar
  12. Glover JM (2012) The structural role of private enforcement mechanisms in public law. William Mary L Rev 53:1137–1217Google Scholar
  13. Klauser A (2016) Verbandsklagen von Verbraucherorganisationen auf Unterlassung von Menschenrechtsverletzungen und Unternehmensstrafrecht. Österreichisches Anwaltsblatt 2016:584–586Google Scholar
  14. Korenzov A (2015) When david teaches EU law to Goliath: a generational upheaval in the making. In: Bobek M (ed) Central European judges under the European influence. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 241–265Google Scholar
  15. Krastev I (2014) Democracy disrupted. U of Pennsyl Press, Philadelphia, The Politics of Global ProtestCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kühn Z (2011) The judiciary in central and Eastern Europe: mechanical jurisprudence in transformation. M Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Küpper H (2015) Normsetzung in Osteuropa. Jahrbuch für Ostrecht 56(2):305–375Google Scholar
  18. Lange FV (2010) Grundrechtsbindung des Gesetzgebers. Eine rechtsvergleichende Studie zu Deutschland, Frankreich und den USA. Mohr, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  19. Maltsev Y, Skaskiw R (2013) The tea party explained: from crisis to crusade. Open Court, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Mańko R (2013) Survival of the socialist legal tradition? a polish perspective. Comparative Law Rev 4.2. https://www.ssrn.com. Accessed 7 June 2018
  21. Marcus R (2014) The big bad wolf: American class actions. In: Harsági V, Van Rhee CH (eds) Multi-party redress mechanisms in Europe: squeaking mice?. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 35–49Google Scholar
  22. Marinoni L, Arenhart SC (2014) Collective litigation and due process of law: The Brazilian experience. Intn’l J of Procedural Law/Revue internationale de droit processuel/Internationale Zeitschrift für Prozessrecht/Revista internacional de derecho Procesal/Rivista internationale di diritto processuale 4(1):42–61Google Scholar
  23. Loth MA (2015) Corrective and distributive justice in tort law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 22(6):788–811Google Scholar
  24. Lytton TD (2008) Using tort litigation to enhance regulatory policy making: evaluating climate-change litigation in light of lessons from gun-industry and clergy-sexual-abuse lawsuits. Texas Law Review 86:1837–1876Google Scholar
  25. Meurkens RC (2014) Punitive damages, the civil remedy in American law, lessons and caveats for continental Europe. Dissertation, University of Maastricht. http://www.dart-europe.eu/full.php?id=1253331. Accessed 7 June 2018
  26. Pašukanis EB (2003) The general theory of law and Marxism. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, London, Second printingGoogle Scholar
  27. Pavčnik M (2013) Teorija prava, 4E. GVZaložba, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  28. Reich N (2004) Transformation of contract law and civil justice in new EU member countries: the example of the Baltic States, Hungary and Poland. Riga Graduate School of Law Working Papers No. 21. http://www.rgsl.edu.lv/en/research/rgsl-working-papers. Accessed 7 June 2018
  29. Resnik J (1982) Managerial Judges. Harvard L Rev 96:374–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Röger R (2004) Nachbarrecht im Spannungsfeld zwischen liberalisiertem öffentlichen Baurecht und verschärftem Zivilrecht. Österreichische Juristenzeitung 59(22):821–826Google Scholar
  31. Roth H (2016) Private Rechtsdurchsetzung im Zivilprozess. Juristenzeitung 71(23):1134–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schack H (2014) Internationales Zivilprozessrecht. CH Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  33. Seewald K (2017) Tagungsbericht: Instrumentalisierung von Zivilprozessen. Juristenzeitung 72(11):566–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sirc L (2008) Totalitarian features of the judiciary in the republic of Slovenia (1945–1990): disregard for the rule of law. In: Jambek P (ed) Crimes committed by Totalitarian regimes: reports and proceedings of the 8 april european public hearing on crimes committed by Totalitarian regimes. Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, Brussels, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  35. Sladič J (2014) Appeals in civil procedure in Slovenia: why the recent reforms of civil procedure did not manage to avoid the endless cycle of remittals. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Nobody’s perfect: comparative essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters. Intersentia, Portland, Antwerp, pp 211–227Google Scholar
  36. Stürner R (2014) Liberalismus und Zivilprozess. Österreichische Juristenzeitung 69(14–15):629–639Google Scholar
  37. Stürner R (2016) The role of civil procedure in modern societies. Ritsumeikan Law Rev, Int Ed 33:73–81Google Scholar
  38. Uzelac A (1997) Istina u sudskom postupku. Pravni fakultet, ZagrebGoogle Scholar
  39. Uzelac A (2010) Survival of the third legal tradition? Supreme Court Law Rev 49:377–396Google Scholar
  40. Uzelac A (2014a) Why no class actions in Europe? A view from the side of dysfunctional justice systems. In: Harsági V, Van Rhee CH (eds) Multi-party redress mechanisms in Europe: squeaking mice?. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 53–74Google Scholar
  41. Uzelac A (2014b) Croatia: omnipotent judges as the cause of procedural inefficiency and impotence. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Civil litigation in china and Europe—essays on the role of the judge and the parties. Springer, Berlin, pp 197–221Google Scholar
  42. Van Boom WH (2010) Comparative notes on injunction and wrongful risk-taking. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 17(1):10–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Boom WH, Giesen I, Ogus A (2010) Editorial: the power of injunctive relief in tort: an introduction. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 17(1):2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zobec J, Černič JL (2015) The Remains of the authoritarian mentality within the slovene judiciary. In: Bobek M (ed) Central European judges under the European influence. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, pp 125–148Google Scholar
  45. Zoller E (2011) La justice comme contre-pouvoir: regards croisés sur les pratiques américaine et française. Revue internationale de droit comparé 53(3):559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia

Personalised recommendations