Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Harmonisation of Civil Procedure: An Historical and Comparative Perspective

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

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the harmonisation of civil procedural law in Europe and on a global scale. As the title indicates, this will be done by also taking into consideration past experiences in this field. The question as to the desirability of harmonisation will not be discussed. The chapter will especially focus on (1) Harmonisation as a result of national law reform, (2) Harmonisation as a result of competition between procedural systems, and (3) Harmonisation as a result of international harmonisation projects.

Professor of European Legal History and Comparative Civil Procedure at Maastricht University, The Netherlands

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.

    Van Caenegem 2005; Van Rhee 2005a, b.

  2. 2.

    Andrews 2009, 52: ‘This project [i.e. the American Law Institute/l’Institut international pour l’unification du droit privé (ALI/UNIDROIT) Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure] also shows that a jurisdiction’s historical association with the Common Law or Civil Law tradition is not an immutable genetic stamp. Arguably, this backward-looking distinction will soon have lost any clear value in modern procedural structures.’ And also: ‘These differences [between the US and English systems, and between the various civil law jurisdictions] make a nonsense of the glib phrase “Anglo-American procedure” and, especially, of the crude expression “Civilian procedure”.’ See also Chap. 2 of the present Volume and Storskrubb 2008, 285, and Trockner and Varano 2005, 244–247.

  3. 3.

    Andrews 2003, paras 34.08–34.10; Supreme Court Act 1981, Section 69; Stürner 2005, 225; Van Rhee 1998, 129.

  4. 4.

    Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution.

  5. 5.

    Burnham 2006, 226–259.

  6. 6.

    Woolf 1996, para 37 et seq (available at http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/index.htm; last consulted in June 2011); Andrews 2009, paras 26.01–26.128.

  7. 7.

    Lindblom 1997, 20.

  8. 8.

    Woolf 1996, Section II; Van Rhee 2008, 11–25.

  9. 9.

    Van Rhee 2003, 217–232. See for an overview of the major similarities and differences between the world’s civil procedural systems, ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 4–7.

  10. 10.

    Aa et al. 1968, 459–461 (Ontwerp-Cras 1804): Art. 55. ‘Gelijk elk verpligt is, daar toe behoorlijk geroepen zijnde, getuigenis der waarheid te geven, zoo moet ook elk, die eenige bewijsstukken onder zich heeft, welke tot ontlasting of bezwaar, ’t zij in burgerlijke, ’t zij in misdadige zaken, strekken, dezelve aan den belanghebbenden, of die daar recht op hebben, uitreiken.’ (Similar to the rule that everyone who has been called to court in the prescribed manner has to testify, also everyone who has any beneficial or detrimental documentary proof under him has to provide anyone with an interest in or an entitlement to these documents with these very documents, both in criminal and in civil cases). However, even though this rule seems extremely broad, according to the draft in most cases the defendant—but only the defendant—did not have to disclose documents to the claimant; see Art. 59. ‘Gelijk, in het algemeen, de eisscher met het bewijs zijner vordering belast is, zonder dat de verweerder iets daar tegen behoeft te berde te brengen, zoo kan ook deze niet genoodzaakt worden, om de bewijzen, welke hij voor de vordering van den eisscher in zijnen boezem heeft over te geven.’ (Similar to the rule that, generally speaking, the claimant has the burden of proof as regards his claim, without the need for the defendant to act in this respect, also the defendant cannot be obliged to disclose documents in his power which are beneficial for the claimant’s case). After the draft has listed some exceptions to this rule, Art. 62 states that in situations other than those listed as exceptions to the general rule, the judge has considerable discretion as regards the defendant’s duty to disclose documents; see Art. 62. ‘In welke andere gevallen een gedaagde tot overgifte der brieven, welke bij hem berusten, gehouden zij, moet de rechter beoordeelen.’ (In which other cases the defendant can be obliged to disclose documents has to be determined by the judge).

  11. 11.

    Klein 1891, 41 et seq.

  12. 12.

    On the introduction of discovery devices in some Continental jurisdictions, see also Trockner and Varano 2005, 255–258; and Verkerk 2010, 37.

  13. 13.

    Miller 1997, 905–918.

  14. 14.

    Van Rhee 1997, 313 et seq. See also Van Rhee 2000a.

  15. 15.

    Jongbloed 2005, 69–95.

  16. 16.

    Heirbaut 2009, 89–117.

  17. 17.

    This topic will be the subject of a future PhD thesis, supervised by the author of this chapter at Maastricht University Faculty of Law.

  18. 18.

    Chase et al. 2007, 35–36.

  19. 19.

    Blok et al. 1980, 135 et seq, and idem, 311 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Van Rhee 2006, 129–165; Heirbaut 2009.

  21. 21.

    Heirbaut 2009.

  22. 22.

    Van Rhee 2000b, 331–346.

  23. 23.

    Van Rhee 2008.

  24. 24.

    Van Rhee 2003. The use of the term ‘approximation’ is based on the title of the Report of the Storme Group, discussed below (Storme 1994). See now also Art. 81(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  25. 25.

    Van Rhee 2008.

  26. 26.

    Van Rhee 2008; Stürner 2005, 226–227.

  27. 27.

    Van Rhee 2005b, 23.

  28. 28.

    http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/Jura/gottwald/iapl/ (last consulted in June 2010).

  29. 29.

    http://www.coe.int/T/dghl/cooperation/cepej/default_en.asp (last consulted in June 2010).

  30. 30.

    On the history of the French Code of Civil Procedure, see Wijffels 2008, 5–73.

  31. 31.

    Franz Klein (1854–1926) claimed in the 1890s that even though the French Code of Civil Procedure did not grant the French judge far-reaching case management powers, such powers were, in practice, exercised by him without a legal basis in the Code. See Klein 1891, 25: ‘Dem französischen Rechte ist der Richter in Prüfen, Glauben und Urtheilen eine lebendige Person mit zu achtenden intellectuellen und moralischen Bedürfnissen, nicht ein blutleerer Judicaturapparat, wie sich ihn das gemeine Recht ausgesonnen hat. Diese so unscheinbare Wahrheit […] erklärt, warum in Frankreich freie Instructionsthätigkeit des Richters ohne besondere gesetzliche Anerkennung bestehen, die allercursorischste Normirung genügen kann.’ That claim echoes an observation constantly made by French authors themselves writing on civil procedure from the latter part of the nineteenth century onwards, although of course verifying the veracity of such statements would require extensive research of the French case law and of day-to-day practice during this period.

  32. 32.

    Oberhammer and Domej 2005, 103–128.

  33. 33.

    Klein asked the following, rhetorical question: ‘Sollte das “Processeigenthum” stärker als alles sonstige Privateigenthum sein, und muss erst gesagt werden, welches die öffentlichen Interessen sind, mit denen die uns so selbstverständliche schrankenlose Disposition über den Processinhalt collidirt, und was sich dann gerade aus der Eigenthumsanalogie ergibt?’ (Klein 1891, 17).

  34. 34.

    See Fasching 1988, 97–117, and Van Caenegem 2005, 97.

  35. 35.

    Walter 2005, 67–72.

  36. 36.

    For more detailed information, see Van Rhee 2000a.

  37. 37.

    Available at http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/iecl/ocjsurvey.shtml (last consulted in July 2011).

  38. 38.

    In a European context, the various reports of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) are of interest (http://www.coe.int/T/dghl/cooperation/cepej/default_en.asp, last consulted 3 June 2010). See Albers 2008, 9–28. See also Albers 2009, 57–74.

  39. 39.

    In this respect the Doing Business Reports of the World Bank are of interest. Part of the comparison made by the World Bank concerns the national justice systems of the various economies (183 in total in the 2011 Report). See the chapter on enforcing contracts in the 2011 Report, 70–76 (the report is available at http://www.doingbusiness.org/; last consulted in July 2011).

  40. 40.

    E.g. Walter and Baumgartner 1998, 463–476.

  41. 41.

    See, e.g., the various proposals for harmonisation in Storme 1994.

  42. 42.

    Ervo 2009, 26.

  43. 43.

    Storme 1994.

  44. 44.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006. Another example is the Código Procesal Civil Modelo para Iberoamérica (1994). The text may be found at the website of the ‘Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Americas’ (http://cejamericas.org/, last consulted in April 2010). I will not discuss various initiatives as regards arbitration and The Hague Conventions on civil procedure in this chapter.

  45. 45.

    See Arts. 26 et seq Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  46. 46.

    Storskrubb 2008, 1–3, 78.

  47. 47.

    See also Andrews 2009, 54–55.

  48. 48.

    Golder v UK, 4451/70, judgment of 21 February 1975.

  49. 49.

    Van Dijk et al. 2006, 578–596.

  50. 50.

    Freudenthal 2007, 269–270.

  51. 51.

    I.e. the total body of European Union law accumulated thus far.

  52. 52.

    Art. 6(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Official Journal C 364, 18/12/2000, 1–22), Art. 47: Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.

  53. 53.

    Nearly all European countries are members of the Council of Europe, the exceptions being the Vatican, and Belarus—because of this country’s lack of respect for human rights and democratic principles.

  54. 54.

    Former Article 65 European Community Treaty: Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 67 [Article 67 ECT lays down the procedure for the adoption of legislation under, amongst other Articles, Article 65. See Storskrubb 2008, 47–48] and in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include:

    1. (a)

      improving and simplifying:

      • the system for cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents,

      • cooperation in the taking of evidence,

      • the recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases, including decisions in extrajudicial cases;

    2. (b)

      promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning the conflict of laws and of jurisdiction;

    3. (c)

      eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States.

  55. 55.

    For a discussion of Art. 114 TFEU, which according to a new legislative approach of the European Commission includes the power of harmonising national procedural laws if the latter do not sufficiently implement substantive EU law, see the chapters by Wagner and Hess in this Volume.

  56. 56.

    I will not discuss the European Judicial Network here, nor judicial training and some other measures. See Storskrubb 2008, 233 et seq.

  57. 57.

    For non-European lawyers, it may be useful to know that a regulation is a legislative act which becomes immediately enforceable as law in all Member States simultaneously. Regulations can be distinguished from directives, which need to be transposed into national law by the Member States. Directives may give rise to different national legislative solutions in order to reach the aim of the directive. All regulations and directives mentioned in this chapter can be found on the website of the European Union: http://europa.eu/ (last consulted in May 2011).

  58. 58.

    Article 81(2) sub c, as far as it deals with the conflict of laws, will not be discussed in detail here, since the topics that have so far been brought under this heading are not directly relevant for civil procedural law. The two most important topics that may be mentioned are Regulation No. 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008, L 177/6, and Regulation No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ 2007, L 199/40.

  59. 59.

    Storskrubb 2008, 39, 272–273. The European Small Claims Procedure, for example, was originally envisaged as also being applicable in purely national disputes. At a late moment in the drafting process, however, it was decided that it would only cover international cases, leading to discrimination as regards purely domestic cases in jurisdictions where the national rules are less favourable than the European rules. See Storskrubb 2008, 220–221.

  60. 60.

    Storme 1994, 53 et seq.

  61. 61.

    Storme 1994, 57–58.

  62. 62.

    Storme 1994, 54.

  63. 63.

    Storme 1994, 61. For a definition of a directive, see n. 58.

  64. 64.

    Storme 1994, 62–63.

  65. 65.

    Lindblom 1997.

  66. 66.

    Lindblom 1997, 32, 45.

  67. 67.

    Lindblom 1997, 45.

  68. 68.

    Lindblom 1997, 32.

  69. 69.

    Lindblom 1997, 36.

  70. 70.

    For some very derogative remarks, see, e.g., Biondi 2005, 233: ‘The rather ponderous project (127 articles!), as it is otherwise known, was soon pilloried (complex, adding complexity to quote the kindest) and did not produce any practical effects. Its lasting notoriety is due to the fact that it is invariably quoted in any articles that deal with procedural law and European law.’ It should, however, be remembered that complexity (meaning a large number of articles) is not felt by everyone as a negative aspect of procedural legislation, taking into consideration the contribution in the same Volume of Díez-Picazo Giménez 2005, entitled ‘The Principal Innovations of Spain’s Recent Civil Procedure Reform’ (33–66), who highly praises the new Spanish Code of Civil Procedure. On the basis of his contribution, however, the least that can be said about this new Code is that it is complex (it contains 827 articles although it does not even cover many of the areas which in other Civil Law countries are usually part of the Code of Civil Procedure) and, according to the author, in various instances unclear. Sometimes the so-called ‘innovations’ of this new Code are even medieval in character. The following quote is rather interesting for someone with some knowledge of the history of civil procedure: ‘A special device has been established [by the new Code] for issues related to jurisdiction and proper venue of the court: the so called declinatory plea (declinatoria) … Exceptions of lack of jurisdiction and proper venue have to be raised by the defendant prior to filing his answer …’ It suffices to know that the declinatory plea already figures in the 13th century Speculum Iudiciale of Durantis.

  71. 71.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 3. See for an extensive bibliography on the Principles: ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 157 et seq.

  72. 72.

    Andrews 2009, 52.

  73. 73.

    Stürner 2005, 203.

  74. 74.

    Stürner 2005, 204.

  75. 75.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, xxxi.

  76. 76.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 4.

  77. 77.

    Stürner 2005, 205–206. On the three types of Principles that may be distinguished, see Storskrubb 2008, 290.

  78. 78.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 4; Stürner 2005, 205–209, 215.

  79. 79.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 9. The document is also available in a number of other languages.

  80. 80.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, xxix.

  81. 81.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 11.

  82. 82.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 16.

  83. 83.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 21.

  84. 84.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 9.

  85. 85.

    Andrews 2009, 53.

  86. 86.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, ‘Scope and Implementation,’ 16. The terms ‘transnational’ and ‘commercial’ are not defined precisely. See ALI/UNIDROIT 2006 , Comments P-B and P-C.

  87. 87.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, xxvii; Stürner 2005, 209–210.

  88. 88.

    Stürner 2005, 210.

  89. 89.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, xxix.

  90. 90.

    See for an overview: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=10#litigation (last consulted in May 2010).

  91. 91.

    Hazard et al. 2001, 770–771.

  92. 92.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 10–12. See also ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Comment P-E.

  93. 93.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 10–11; idem, ‘Scope and Implementation,’ 16.

  94. 94.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 4.

  95. 95.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Comment P-A, 16; Stürner 2005, 210 et seq.

  96. 96.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, 1-4.

  97. 97.

    Stürner 2005, 223, 226.

  98. 98.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 9.

  99. 99.

    Stürner 2005, 224–226.

  100. 100.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 14.

  101. 101.

    Stürner 2005, 226–227.

  102. 102.

    Stürner 2005, 228.

  103. 103.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 10; Stürner 2005, 229.

  104. 104.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 7.1; Stürner 2005, 227.

  105. 105.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 11.2.

  106. 106.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 11.3; Stürner 2005, 233.

  107. 107.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 22.

  108. 108.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 26.

  109. 109.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 25; Stürner 2005, 251.

  110. 110.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 13.

  111. 111.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 27.

  112. 112.

    ALI/UNIDROIT 2006, Principle 17.

  113. 113.

    Andrews 2009, 57, and also Chap. 2 in this Volume.

References

  • Aa H et al (eds) (1968) Bronnen van de Nederlandse Codificatie sinds 1798. Kemink en Zoon NV, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers P (2008) Judicial systems in Europe compared. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from Ius Commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Albers P (2009) Quality assessment of courts and the judiciary: from judicial quality to court excellence. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Access to justice and the judiciary: towards New European standards of affordability, quality and efficiency of civil adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • ALI/UNIDROIT (2006) Principles of transnational civil procedure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure. Fundamentals of the new civil justice system. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    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 52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi A (2005) Minimum, adequate or excessive protection? The impact of EC law on national procedural law. In: Trockner N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 234–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok DP et al (eds) (1980) Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden, vol IV. Unieboek B.V., Bussum

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham W (2006) Introduction to the law and legal system of the United States. Thomson/West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Díez-Picazo Giménez I (2005) The principal innovations of Spain’s recent civil procedure reform. In: Trockner N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 33–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2009) Party autonomy and access to justice. In: Ervo L, Gräns M, Jokela A (eds) Europeanization of procedural law and the new challenges to fair trial. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 21–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasching HW (1988) Die Weiterentwicklung des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts im Lichte der Ideen Franz Kleins. In: Hofmeister H (ed) Forschungsband Franz Klein (1854–1926). Leben und Wirken. Manz, Vienna, pp 97–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal M (2007) Schets van het Europees civiel procesrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC et al (2001) Introduction to the principles and rules of transnational civil procedure. NY Univ J Law Politics 33:769–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Heirbaut D (2009) Efficiency: the Holy Grail of Belgian Justice? In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Access to justice and the judiciary: towards New European standards of affordability, quality and efficiency of civil adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 89–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed AW (2005) The Netherlands (1838–2005). In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure (Ius Commune Europaeum 54). Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 69–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F (1891) Pro Futuro. Betrachtungen über Probleme der Civilprocessreform in Österreich, Franz Deuticke, Leipzig/Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (1997) Harmony of legal spheres. A Swedish view on the construction of a unified European procedural law. Eur Rev Private Law 5:11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller GP (1997) The legal-economic analysis of comparative civil procedure. Am J Comp Law 45:905–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005) Germany, Switzerland and Austria (ca. 1800–2005). In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 103–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Storme M (1994) Approximation of judiciary law in the European union. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb E (2008) Civil procedure and EU law. A policy area uncovered. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stürner R (2005) The principles of transnational civil procedure. An introduction to their basic conceptions. Rabels Zeitschrift 201–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Trockner N, Varano V (2005) Concluding remarks. In: Trockner N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 243–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Caenegem R (2005) History of European civil procedure. In: International encyclopedia of comparative law, vol XVI. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, pp 16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk P et al (2006) Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights. Intersentia, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (1997) Litigation and legislation. Civil procedure at first instance in the Great Council for the Netherlands in Malines (1522–1559), Archives générales du Royaume, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (1998) English civil procedure until the civil procedure rules. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Oxford, pp 129–159

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2000b) ‘Ons tegenwoordig sukkelproces’. Nederlandse opvattingen over de toekomst van het burgerlijk procesrecht rond 1920, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis. pp 331–346

    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 (ed) (2005a) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2005b) Introduction. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Oxford, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2006) The influence of the French Code de procédure civile (1806) in 19th Century Europe. In: Cadiet L, Canivet G (eds) De la Commémoration d’un code à l’autre: 200 ans de procédure civile en France. Litec, Paris, pp 129–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2008) The development of civil procedural law in twentieth-century Europe: from party autonomy to judicial case management and efficiency. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) Judicial case management and efficiency in civil litigation. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 11–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2010) Civil procedure in a globalizing world: a historical perspective. In: Faure MG, Van der Walt A (eds) Globalization and private law: the way forward. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 343–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk RR (2010) Fact-finding in civil litigation: a comparative perspective. Intersentia, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter G, Baumgartner S (1998) Utility and feasibility of transnational rules of civil procedure: some German and Swiss reactions to the Hazard-Taruffo project. Tex Int Law J 33:463–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter G (2005) The German civil reform Act 2002: Much Ado about nothing? In: Trockner N, Varano V (eds) The reforms of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Giappichelli Editore, Torino, pp 67–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijffels A (2008) The Code de procédure civile (1806) in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) The French code of civil procedure (1806) after 200 years. The civil procedure tradition in France and abroad. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 5–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf H (1996) Access to justice: final report. http://www.dca.gov.uk/cil/final/index.htm (accessed June 2011)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    C. H. van Rhee

Authors
  1. C. H. van Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. H. van Rhee .

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

van Rhee, C.H. (2012). Harmonisation of Civil Procedure: An Historical and Comparative 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_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation