Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Convergence of Civil Procedure Systems in Europe: Comments from a Belgian Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Civil Litigation in a Globalising World

  • 1225 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks into how a country like Belgium deals with civil justice in a globalised world and the ensuing need for more convergence. For the sake of this analysis, much attention is paid to a clear delineation of the object of study and a detailed description of the various methods to induce convergence. It is pointed out that the current euphoria around procedural harmonisation is not always justified: many harmonisation efforts encounter great difficulties to being implemented into the national systems. The Belgian example illustrates how regional harmonisation and the reception of foreign law are also viable options in striving towards more convergence. The authors raise the question as to why the Benelux––the economic union between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg––could not become a laboratory for pan-European initiatives in the field of civil justice.

Professor of procedural law, Catholic University of Leuven. Els VandenSande—Junior researcher, Catholic University of Leuven.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Robertson and White 2007, 64.

  2. 2.

    Zekoll 2006, 1336 and 1341.

  3. 3.

    Dembour 1996, 1.

  4. 4.

    Boodman 1991, 702.

  5. 5.

    Trompenaars 1989, 9–10, para 13 (quoting Malintoppi 1968).

  6. 6.

    Arts. 100–102 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community.

  7. 7.

    See, e.g., in respect of tax law: Comité intergouvernemental créé par la conférence de Messine, Rapport des chefs de délégation aux ministres des affaires étrangères (‘Spaak Report’), Brussels, 1956, at 64.

  8. 8.

    Dembour 1996, 29; Boodman 1991, 699.

  9. 9.

    Kerameus 1995, 401.

  10. 10.

    E.g. Germany: Zekoll 2006, 1338.

  11. 11.

    Zekoll 2006, 1328; Van Rhee and Verkerk 2006. See also Chase et al 2007; Gidi 2006, 502 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Storme 1994.

  13. 13.

    Juenger 1997, 932–933.

  14. 14.

    Green Paper on a European Order for Payment Procedure and on Measures to simplify and speed up Small Claims Litigation, COM (2002) 746 def., 12.

  15. 15.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2004. For an introduction to the Rules and Principles, see Hazard et al. 2001. For an early critique of a preliminary draft, see Weintraub 1998 (who questions the need for transnational rules and principles, at 414–415).

  16. 16.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2004, 758.

  17. 17.

    Chase et al 2007, 574–575.

  18. 18.

    Storskrubb 2009, 1.

  19. 19.

    Warsaw declaration, http://www.coe.int/t/dcr/summit/20050517_decl_varsovie_en.asp (last consulted in May 2011).

  20. 20.

    Action plan of the Council of Europe (17 May 2005), CM (2005) 80, http://www.coe.int/t/dcr/summit/20050517_plan_action_en.asp (last consulted in May 2011).

  21. 21.

    Presidency Conclusions––Tampere European Council, para 33, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm (last consulted in May 2011).

  22. 22.

    Regulation No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ 2007, L 199, 1–22.

  23. 23.

    Regulation No. 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ 2006, L 399, 1–32.

  24. 24.

    Hess 2002, 4. See also Tell 2003, 455 (who speaks of ‘harmonisation de type fédéral’).

  25. 25.

    Storskrubb 2009, 12.

  26. 26.

    Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme. An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C 115 of 4.5.2010, 14.

  27. 27.

    Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme. An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C 115 of 4.5.2010, 15.

  28. 28.

    Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ 2004, L 157/16, 16–25.

  29. 29.

    Sala 2008, 208.

  30. 30.

    Dougan 2004.

  31. 31.

    ECJ 27 June 2000, Case C-240 to 244/98), ECR I-04941 (Océano Grupo).

  32. 32.

    Delicostopulos 2003, 229 et seq. See also, for a critical observations: Zekoll 2006, 1338 and 1351 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Eliantonio 2009, 10.

  34. 34.

    Van Rhee 2000, 598.

  35. 35.

    Storme 2005, 87. See also Freudenthal 2003, 10; Van Rhee 2003, 217 et seq.

  36. 36.

    See, e.g., Lowenfeld 1997, 653.

  37. 37.

    Kerameus 1995, 401–402.

  38. 38.

    Hartnell 2002, 130.

  39. 39.

    Zuckerman 2002, 325; Juenger 1997, 933.

  40. 40.

    Zuckerman 2002, 322; Andrews 2008, 281.

  41. 41.

    Zuckerman 2002, 322.

  42. 42.

    Hess 2010, 207–208; Storme 2005, 99.

  43. 43.

    Chase et al 2007, 562 et seq. See also Visscher (Chap. 4) in the current Volume.

  44. 44.

    Juenger 1997, 936.

  45. 45.

    Andrews 2009, 56.

  46. 46.

    Storme 2005, 96.

  47. 47.

    Freudenthal 2003, 2.

  48. 48.

    See the consultation on collective redress: Commission Staff Working Document. Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress, SEC(2011) 173.

  49. 49.

    Ferrand 2003, 430–436.

  50. 50.

    Damaška 1986.

  51. 51.

    Kerameus 1995, 412.

  52. 52.

    Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme. An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C 115 of 4.5.2010, 11, 12 and 13.

  53. 53.

    For example Art. 156 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (in respect of social policy) and Art. 168 lid 2 TFEU (in respect of public health) stipulate that Member States should weigh in advance their respective policies against stipulated European criteria.

  54. 54.

    For an overview of the different appreciations of the OMC in the literature, see: Zeitlin and Pochet 2005, 22.

  55. 55.

    Chase et al 2007; Chase 1997.

  56. 56.

    Kennett 2000, 306.

  57. 57.

    Kennett 2000, 306.

  58. 58.

    Kennett 2000, 309.

  59. 59.

    Van Reepinghen 1964, 12–14.

  60. 60.

    Allemeersch 2003, 451–455.

  61. 61.

    Oplinus 2010, 1370.

  62. 62.

    Recommendation on mediation in civil matters (Rec (2002) 10) and recommendation on family mediation (Rec(98)1E), http://www.coe.int (last consulted in May 2011).

  63. 63.

    Commission of Inquiry, Parliamentary Documents: House of Representatives 2008–2009, No. 52 1711/007, 70, para 1.3. Available at http://www.dekamer.be (last consulted in May 2011).

  64. 64.

    Recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly on the Role of the public prosecutor’s office in a democratic society governed by the rule of law (Rec 1604 (2003)).

  65. 65.

    E.g. Van Turnhout 2007, 338. See also Storme 2009b, 38, para 55; Storme 2010, 376. Contra: Storme 2009a, 27.

  66. 66.

    Storskrubb 2009, 12.

  67. 67.

    Benelux––Convention holding the Uniform Law concerning the Civil Coercive Fine, signed at The Hague on 26 November 1973.

  68. 68.

    The Netherlands: Art. 611a–Art. 611h of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. Belgium: Art. 1385 bis–Art. 1385 nonies of the Judicial Code. Luxembourg: Arts. 2059–2066 Civil Code.

  69. 69.

    Wouters and Vidal 2007, 555.

  70. 70.

    Art. 4 of the Convention. For a commentary on the system of preliminary reference to the Benelux Court of Justice, see Limpens 1977.

  71. 71.

    Benelux—Convention on the attorney’s profession, signed at Brussels on 12 December 1968.

  72. 72.

    Wouters et al 2006, 111.

  73. 73.

    Wouters et al 2006, 111.

  74. 74.

    Memorandum of understanding dated 4 June 1996 concerning the cooperation in the field of policing, justice and immigration.

  75. 75.

    Wouters and Vidal 2007, 555.

  76. 76.

    Wouters and Vidal 2007, 558.

  77. 77.

    Storme 2005, 95 (who proposes focusing first on the Continental civil law systems).

References

  • ALI/UNIDROIT (2004) Principles of transnational civil procedure. Unif Law Rev 4:758–810

    Google Scholar 

  • Allemeersch B (2003) Bemiddeling en verzoening in het burgerlijk proces. Proeve van een beginselenleer in een Belgisch en Europees perspectief. Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 40:409–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews N (2008) The modern civil process. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews N (2009) A modern procedural synthesis. The American Law Institute and UNIDROIT’s principles and rules of transnational civil procedure. Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging 14:52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Boodman M (1991) The myth of harmonization of laws. Am J Comp Law 39:699–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase OG (1997) Some observations on the cultural dimension in civil procedure reform. Am J Comp Law 45:861–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase OG et al (2007) Civil litigation in comparative context. West Publishing, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška M (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Delicostopulos JS (2003) Towards European procedural primacy in national legal systems. Eur Law J 9:599–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembour M-B (1996) Harmonization and the construction of Europe: variations away from a musical theme. European University Institute Department of Law, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2004) National remedies before the court of justice. Issues of harmonisation and differentiation. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliantonio M (2009) The future of national procedural law in Europe: harmonisation vs. judge-made standards in the field of administrative justice. Electron J Comp Law 13(3):1–10. Available at http://www.ejcl.org/133/art133-4.pdf (Accessed May 2011)

  • Ferrand F (2003) La procédure civile internationale et la procédure civile transnationale: l’incidence de l’intégration économique régionale. Unif Law Rev 8:397–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal M (2003) The future of European civil procedure. Electron J Comp Law 7.5:1–10. Available at http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/75/art75-6.html (Accessed May 2011)

  • Gidi A (2006) Teaching comparative civil procedure. J Legal Edu 56:502–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartnell HE (2002) EUstitia: institutionalizing justice in the European Union. Northwest J Int Law Bus 23:65–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC Jr, Taruffo M, Sturner R, Gidi A (2001) Introduction to the principles and rules of transnational civil procedure. NY Univ J Int Law Politics 33:769–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2002) The integrating effect of European civil procedure law. Eur J Law Reform 4:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2010) Deutsches Zivilprozessrecht zwischen nationaler Eigenstandigkeit und europaischem Anpassungszwang. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 27:191–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Juenger F (1997) Some comments on European procedural harmonization. Am J Comp Law 45:931–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennett W (2000) The enforcement of judgments in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerameus K (1995) Procedural harmonization in Europe. Am J Comp Law 43:401–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limpens J (1977) L’interprétation des lois uniformes et la Cour de Justice Benelux. Unif Law Rev 5:68–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenfeld A (1997) The elements of procedure: Are they separately portable? Am J Comp Law 45:649–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oplinus S (2010) De schikkingscomparitie en het her-oraliseren van het civiele geding. Rechtskundig Weekblad 73:1370–1377

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson R, White K (2007) What is globalization? In: Ritzer G (ed) The Blackwell companion to globalization. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 54–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Sala RM (2008) European private law without European law in civil procedure. In: Vaquer A (ed) European private law beyond the common frame of reference. Essays in honour of Reinhard Zimmerman. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 203–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme M (ed) (1994) Approximation of judiciary law in the European Union/Rapprochement du Droit Judiciaire de l’Union européenne. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme M (2005) A single civil procedure for Europe: a cathedral builders’ dream. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 22:87–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme H (2009a) Uniforme Europese procedures voor versnelde afhandeling van grensoverschrijdende geschillen. Cahier du Juriste––Cahier van de Jurist 7(1):27–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme ME (2009b) De verhouding tussen de Europese procesrechtelijke verhoudingen (in het bijzonder geringe vorderingen) en het interne Belgische procesrecht. Ius Actores 3:19–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme ME (2010) België als no-go-zone voor schuldeisers? Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 47:373–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb E (2009) What changes will European procedural harmonisation bring? Paper presented at the IAPL conference ‘the future of categories—categories of the future,’ Toronto, Canada, 3–5 June 2009. Available at http://www.iapl2009.org/documents/5EvaStorskrubb.pdf (Accessed May 2011)

  • Tell O (2003) La construction de l’espace unique européen en matière de justice face à l’harmonisation universelle de la procédure civile: propos réalistes d’un acteur européen. Unif Law Rev 30:453–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars BWM (1989) Pluriforme unificatie en uniforme interpretatie. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Reepinghen C (1964) Report on the judicial reform, Preparatory documents Sentae

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2000) Civil procedure: a European Ius Commune? Eur Rev Priv Law 8:589–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2003) Towards a procedural Ius Commune? In: Smits J, Lubbe G (eds) Remedies in Zuid-Afrika en Europa. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH, Verkerk R (2006) Civil procedure. In: Smits (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law. Edgar Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 120–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Turnhout R (2007) Europese procedure voor geringe vorderingen. Kritische analyse vanuit Belgisch standpunt, Tijdschrift voor procesrecht en bewijsrecht/Revue de droit judiciare et de la preuve, pp 325–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintraub RJ (1998) Critique of the Hazard-Taruffo transnational rules of civil procedure. Tex Int Law J 33:413–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J, Vidal M (2007) Towards a rebirth of Benelux? Revue Belge de droit int 40:533–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J et al (2006) De Benelux: Tijd voor een wedergeboorte? Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin J, Pochet P (2005) The open method of co-ordination in action. Peter Lang, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Zekoll J (2006) Comparative civil procedure. In: Zimmermann R, Reimann M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1327–1362

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman AAS (2002) Conference on ‘the ALI-UNIDROIT principles and rules of transnational civil procedure,’ hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London 24 May 2002. Civ Justice Q 20:322–325

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Benoît Allemeersch & Els Vandensande

Authors
  1. Benoît Allemeersch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Els Vandensande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benoît Allemeersch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands

    X.E. Kramer

  2. , Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Bouillonstraat 1-3, Maastricht, 6211 LH, Netherlands

    C.H. Rhee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Allemeersch, B., Vandensande, E. (2012). Convergence of Civil Procedure Systems in Europe: Comments from a Belgian Perspective. In: Kramer, X., Rhee, C. (eds) Civil Litigation in a Globalising World. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-817-0_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation