Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nordic Court Culture in Progress: Historical and Futuristic Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Civil Litigation

Abstract

This chapter addresses topical issues within the subject area of civil litigation. The perspective will be partly historical and partly futuristic. The progress that is just now going on in European civil litigation is explained and studied from the traditional and historical perspectives, both of which are used as a tool to find the explanations for recent developments. Civil litigation, the author contends, seems to return to ancient venues that are outside courts, to be resolved by alternative methods, such as mediation. There are many common factors with the ancient dispute resolution, but because the current society strongly differs from the ancient one, the reasons must be studied from the societal perspective as well. The questions to be set are if there is something new under the sun or if we are just circulating. In other words, which are the modern characteristics of the progressive civil litigation, and from which parts of it does dispute resolution seem to return to the very traditional and ancient forms only? Why can nowadays justice be seen as a negotiated compromise between parties? Why we can talk about the new court culture, why can adjudication be seen as court service and the parties as customers and no longer as “royal subjects”?

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.

    Summary on the history of Swedish–Finnish procedures can be found, for instance, in Ervo (2007), pp. 49–77.

  2. 2.

    I use the term “court culture” in the same sense as Anna Piszcz has earlier done in this anthology (see Chap. 18.), including courts, lawyers and parties’ attitudes towards resolution of cases. Like Piszcz has explained earlier, court culture is especially being shaped by procedural laws. The latter part of the court culture is even more important in this chapter than the first dimension due to the fact that this article is not sociological but a juridical one. Therefore, I am looking at court cultures, especially from the normative perspective. In addition, values, as well as the impact of numerous constitutional, economic, political and social factors, have influenced court culture not only directly but even indirectly in the form of new procedural legislation.

  3. 3.

    Ervo (2013b), p. 51.

  4. 4.

    Ervasti (2004), p. 168, Ervo and Rasia (2012a), pp. 62–64, Haavisto (2002), p. 20, Laukkanen (1995), p. 214, Takala (1998), pp. 3–5, Tala (2002), pp. 21–23, Tyler (1990), p. 94 and Virolainen and Martikainen (2003), p. 5.

  5. 5.

    Ervasti (2004), p. 168, Haavisto (2002), p. 20, Laukkanen (1995), p. 214, Takala (1998), pp. 3–5, Tala (2002), pp. 21–23, Tyler (1990), p. 94 and Virolainen and Martikainen (2003), p. 5.

  6. 6.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–106.

  7. 7.

    Ervasti (2002), pp. 56–62, Leppänen (1998), pp. 32–41, Lindell (2003), pp. 82–101, Lindblom (2000), pp. 46–58 and Virolainen (1995), pp. 80–89.

  8. 8.

    Ervo (2013b), p. 57.

  9. 9.

    Effective in this sense means well-working system where the judicial relief is taken into consideration among costs and length.

  10. 10.

    Tirkkonen (1974), p. 48 and Ylikangas (1983), pp. 7–19.

  11. 11.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), pp. 6, pp. 264–268 and Ylikangas (1983), pp. 7–19.

  12. 12.

    Jokela (2005), p. 6, Letto-Vanamo (1995), p. 6 and Tirkkonen (1974), s. 48.

  13. 13.

    Jokela (2005), p. 6 and Letto-Vanamo (1995), p. 10.

  14. 14.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), p. 84.

  15. 15.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), pp. 127–132.

  16. 16.

    From the beginning of 1400s on, all litigation cases were decided by the jury.

  17. 17.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), pp. 142, 230–231.

  18. 18.

    Ervo (2007), p. 67, Letto-Vanamo (1995), pp. 10–13 and Nousiainen (1993), p. 327.

  19. 19.

    Jokela (2005), p. 6 and Letto-Vanamo (1995), p. 10.

  20. 20.

    Virolainen (2004), p. 576.

  21. 21.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), p. 223.

  22. 22.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), p. 255.

  23. 23.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), pp. 85–101 and Nousiainen (1993), pp. 319–320.

  24. 24.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), pp. 221–233 and 307.

  25. 25.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), pp. 233–236 and 307–308.

  26. 26.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), p. 308.

  27. 27.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), pp. 246, 256 and 308.

  28. 28.

    Letto-Vanamo (1989), p. 248.

  29. 29.

    Nousiainen (1993), pp. 318–319.

  30. 30.

    Letto-Vanamo (1995), p. 85.

  31. 31.

    Virolainen (2004), pp. 407–408.

  32. 32.

    Inger (2011) and Letto-Vanamo (1989), p. 241.

  33. 33.

    Nousiainen (1993), p. 389.

  34. 34.

    Aggregated in Ervo (2007), pp. 77–95.

  35. 35.

    Aggregated in Ervo (2007), pp. 82–93.

  36. 36.

    The goal of civil procedure has traditionally been said to be the realising of the interests and of the rights of civil law. That is why also procedural values have been seen to be identical with the values of substantive law. See, for instance, Henckel (1970), p. 409.

  37. 37.

    For instance, Hägerström, Lundstedt, Olivekrona, Ekelöf, Andenæs, Boman, Werin, Scott and Fiss.

  38. 38.

    For instance, Aubert, Bolding, Eckhoff, Lindell and Palmgren. According to Lindell, the procedure in non-mandatory civil cases should be conflict resolution and in mandatory cases, dispute resolution. Lindell (1988), p. 87.

  39. 39.

    For instance, Lindblom and Strömholm; see in the procedure the influences of both theories. Lindblom (2000), pp. 52–58.

  40. 40.

    Aggregated in Ervasti (2004), p. 507.

  41. 41.

    Aggregated in Ervasti (2004), p. 507.

  42. 42.

    Lindell (1988), p. 88 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 227–290.

  43. 43.

    Ervo (2009a, 2011a, b).

  44. 44.

    Menkel-Meadow (1996), p. 5.

  45. 45.

    See Sect. 19.3.

  46. 46.

    Tirkkonen (1969), pp. 24–25.

  47. 47.

    Ervo (2012b), p. 3.

  48. 48.

    Frände (2009), p. 366, Niemi-Kiesiläinen (2003), p. 346, Huovila (2003), p. 179, Turunen (1999), p. 496, Virolainen and Pölönen (2003), p. 174. However, Jokela, Lappalainen and Saranpää have stressed aspects that refer to the material truth and its importance as well. Jokela 1996 (2005), pp. 40–41, Lappalainen (2001), p. 993 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 28–29. About the significance of the material truth in criminal cases, see Ervo (2013a).

  49. 49.

    Oikeusministeriön mietintöjä ja lausuntoja 69/2012, p. 215.

  50. 50.

    See Sect. 19.3.

  51. 51.

    Menkel-Meadow (1996), p. 5.

  52. 52.

    Tolvanen (2006), p. 1343.

  53. 53.

    With the procedural “frames”, I refer to the way how the distribution of the procedural work has been dealt with by the actors, like the judge and the parties, for instance, who are active and responsible for the truth finding, pleadings, etc. If it is mostly or only the parties who take care of this kind of procedural acts and by those means decide the frames in the single case or if the judge is more active.

  54. 54.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 102–103.

  55. 55.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 98–99, Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–68 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 82–84.

  56. 56.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 99–101, Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–88 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 84–85.

  57. 57.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 102–103.

  58. 58.

    Ervo (2009a, 2011a, b, 2013b).

  59. 59.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–68.

  60. 60.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–68.

  61. 61.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 98–99 and Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–68.

  62. 62.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 98–99, Ervo (2007), pp. 106–111 and Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–68.

  63. 63.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 99–101, Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–88 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 84–85.

  64. 64.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 99–101, Ervo (2007), pp. 111–118, Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–88 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 84–85.

  65. 65.

    Ervo and Rasia (2012a), pp. 62–64.

  66. 66.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 99–101, Ervo (2007), pp. 111–118 and Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–88.

  67. 67.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 99–101, Ervo (2007), pp. 111–118, Laukkanen (1995), pp. 69–88 and Saranpää (2010), pp. 84–85.

  68. 68.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 89–108.

  69. 69.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 89–108.

  70. 70.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 89–108.

  71. 71.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 89–108.

  72. 72.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 89–108.

  73. 73.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 102–103 and Ervo (2007), p. 118.

  74. 74.

    Procedural law has been said to be internationalised because there are more and more international conventions and other rulings, which include very often quite deep regulating procedural norms. Especially, this has been the situation in Finland , where the European Convention on Human Rights and its Article 6 plays a huge role in adjudication. Also, EU law has deep-going effects, especially in the field of civil proceedings and nowadays more and more even in criminal procedure.

  75. 75.

    This concept refers especially to the Finnish phenomenon where the constitutional rights in the field of procedure play a significant role nowadays.

  76. 76.

    Ervasti (2004), p. 168, Haavisto (2002), p. 20, Laukkanen (1995), p. 214, Takala (1998), pp. 3–5, Tala (2002). pp. 21–23, Tyler (1990), p. 94 and Virolainen and Martikainen (2003), p. 5.

  77. 77.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 425–426 and Ervo (2008), pp. 155–157.

  78. 78.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 57–112, Ervo (2005a), pp. 226–235 and Ervo (2009b), pp. 361–376.

  79. 79.

    Ervo (2005b), pp. 425–457, Ervo (2005a), pp. 226–235 and Ervo (2009b), pp. 361–376.

  80. 80.

    Ervasti (2004), p. 433, Ervo (1995), Haavisto (2001), pp. 98–102 and Haavisto (2002), pp. 165–251, 260–262 and 287.

  81. 81.

    Von Bargen (2008).

  82. 82.

    Laukkanen (1995), pp. 35–36 and 58–98.

  83. 83.

    Ervo (2009a, 2011a, b, 2013b).

  84. 84.

    Ervasti (2005), p. 242.

  85. 85.

    Koulu (2009), p. 26 and Koulu (2011), p. 5.

  86. 86.

    http://www.oikeus.fi/55281.htm, visited 2013-09-23.

  87. 87.

    According to court statistics, the amount of civil cases at district courts where the case has been decided by a judgment are the following: (per cent) in 2008, 40.5 %; in 2009, 40.2 %; in 2010, 40.4 %; in 2011, 42 %; and, in 2012, 41.2 %. http://www.domstol.se/Publikationer/Statistik/Domstolsstatistikpercent202012.pdf, visited 2013-09-23. Similar results also in Lindell (2012), p. 303, and in SOU 1982/26: 137, which shows us that the trend has quite long traditions by now.

  88. 88.

    See also Ervasti (2005), p. 243.

  89. 89.

    See, for instance, the publications of Lindell from Sweden , Nylund from Norway and Ervasti, as well as Koulu from Finland .

  90. 90.

    Ervo and Sippel (2012c), pp. 352–353 and Koulu (2011), p. 5.

  91. 91.

    Ervo and Sippel (2012c), pp. 352–353 and Koulu (2011), p. 5.

  92. 92.

    Koulu (2011), p. 5.

  93. 93.

    Ervo and Sippel (2012c), pp. 352–353 and Viitanen (2001), pp. 245–247 and 252.

  94. 94.

    Lindell (2003), pp. 82–101.

  95. 95.

    Ervo (2013b).

  96. 96.

    In Sweden , there has been a system of class actions in force since 2003. The possibility of class actions covers civil cases, which belong to the competence of general courts, as well as the cases concerning environmental damages in environmental courts. The possible class actions in Sweden can be individual group actions, governmental (public) class actions, as well as suits by organisations. The system is based on the opt-in-method. One individual who is a member in the group concerned can bring a suit against a defendant in the case of individual group action. Physical or legal persons can sue the individual group action. In suits by organisations, the plaintiff is a non-profit-making association by consumers or employees. In environmental cases, the non-profit associations can bring class actions if they work for the interests of nature or environmental conservation. Also, the associations for fishermen, farmers and reindeer management and forest societies can bring an organisational suit on environmental issues. A public class action is possible in cases where a suit has not been brought as an individual class action or by the organisations named above. Possible authorities that can bring a public suit are a consumer ombudsman and conservancy authorities in environmental cases. (See Lindblom (1996), pp. 15–21 and Swedish Class Action Act, Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 14 as well as the Code of Environmental Matters, Chapter 32, Section 13 and Government bill 2001/02:107, p. 54.)

    In Finland , class actions are possible in disputes between consumers and entrepreneurs. The Act on Class Actions came into force on 1st October, 2007. Even if the name of the act seems to cover class actions in general, class actions are possible only in consumer disputes. Participation in a class action requires registration as a member of the class. The system is therefore based on opt-in method. Only governmental (public) class action is possible and it is the Consumer Ombudsman who will bring the class action and act as the representative of the class, thereby ensuring that an action cannot be brought for malicious purposes. (Sections, 1, 2 and 4 of the Finnish Class Action Act. See also the Government bill 154/2006, p. 20.)

References

  • Domstolsverket. http://www.domstol.se/Publikationer/Statistik/Domstolsstatistik%202012.pdf. Visited 2013-09-23

  • Ervasti K (2002) Lainkäytön funktiot. Lakimies 2002:47–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K (2004) Käräjäoikeuksien sovintomenettely. Empiirinen tutkimus sovinnon edistämisestä riitaprosessissa. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K (2005) Sovittelu tuomioistuimessa. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (1995) The reform of civil procedure in Finland . Civil Justice Quarterly, pp 56–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2005a) Kommunikation i en rättvis rättegång. Särskilt om muntlighetsprincipens betydelse i Finland . In: Muntilighet vid domstol i Norden. Iustus 2005, pp 221–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2005b) Oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2007) Pääsykoekirja 1/2007. Turun yliopisto, Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2008) Oikeudenkäynnin oikeudenmukaisuusvaatimus. Käsikirja lainkäyttäjille. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2009b) Fair trials as discourse: reforms in Scandinavian procedural law contrasted with reforms in England and Wales. In: Šarčević S (ed) Together with Leslie Blake and John Pointing, in legal language in action : translation, terminology, drafting and procedural issues. Nakladni zavod Globus, Zagreb, pp 361–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2011a) Substantive law and the newest procedural trends in Scandinavia. In: Stürner R, Kawano M (eds) International contract litigation, arbitration and judicial responsibility in transnational disputes. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 147–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2011b) The role of judges and party-autonomy in court-facilitated settlement . In: Stürner R, Kawano M (eds) International contract litigation , arbitration and judicial responsibility in transnational disputes. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 336–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L, Rasia C (2012a) Legal bilingualisation and factual multilingualisation: a comparative study of the protection of linguistic minorities in civil proceedings between Finland and Italy. Int J Law Lang Discourse 2.4:62–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2012b) Tie totuuteen. In: Hyttinen T (ed) Rikoksesta rangaistukseen. Juhlajulkaisu Pekka Viljanen 1952 – 26/8-2012. Turun yliopisto, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L, Sippel L (2012c) Scandinavian countries. In: Esplugues C, Iglesisas JL, Palao G (eds) Civil and commercial mediation in Europe. Intersentia, pp 371–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2013a) Õiglase kohtupidamise väljavaated kriminaalasjades – tulevikuvisioonid ja praegune olukord Skandinaavias ja Euroopas. Juridica 1/2013, pp 47–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2013b) Changing civil proceedings – court service or state economy. In: Recent trends in economy and efficiency of civil procedure. Vilnius University, The Faculty of Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Frände D (2009) Finsk straffprocessrätt. Edita

    Google Scholar 

  • Government bill (Finland ) 154/2006. Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle ryhmäkannelaiksi ja laiksi Kuluttajavirastosta annetun lain muuttamisesta

    Google Scholar 

  • Government bill (Sweden ) 2001/02:107. Regeringens proposition. Lag om grupprättegång

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto V (2001) Sovinnot – ikkuna tuomioistuintyön muutokseen. In: Pohjonen S (ed) Sovittelu ja muut vaihtoehtoiset konfliktinratkaisujärjestelmät (Mediation and other alternative forms for dispute resolution). WSOY, Porvoo, pp 83–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto V (2002) Court work in transition. An activity-theoretical study of changing work practices in a Finnish District court. University of Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckel W (1970) Prozessrecht und Materielles Recht. Schwartz

    Google Scholar 

  • Huovila M (2003) Periaatteet ja perustelut. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • Inger G (2011) Svensk rättshistoria. Liber

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokela A (2005) Oikeudenkäynnin perusteet. Oikeudenkäynti I. Talentum

    Google Scholar 

  • Koulu R (2009) Sovittelu työriidoissa. Edita

    Google Scholar 

  • Koulu R (2011) Yksityiset lautakunnat riidanratkaisijoina. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappalainen J (2001) Asianosaisen totuusvelvollisuudesta siviiliprosessissa. DL, pp 993–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Laukkanen S (1995) Tuomarin rooli. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • Leppänen T (1998) Riita-asiain valmistelu todistusaineiston osalta. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • Letto-Vanamo P (1989) Suomalaisen asianajajalaitoksen synty ja varhaiskehitys. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • Letto-Vanamo P (1995) Käräjäyhteisön oikeus. Oikeudenkäyttö Ruotsi-Suomessa ennen valtiollisen riidanratkaisun vakiintumista. Helsingin yliopisto. Rikos- ja prosessioikeuden sekä oikeuden yleistieteiden laitos

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (1996) Group actions and the role of the courts – a European perspective. Forum internationale, No. 23, May 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom PH (2000) Processens funktioner – en resa i gränslandet. In: Progressive process. Spridda uppsatser om domstolsprocessen och samhällsutveclingen. Iustus, pp 41–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell B (1988) Partsautonomins gränser. Iustus

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell B (2003) Civilprocessen. Andra upplagan, Iustus

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell B (2012) Civilprocessen. Tredje upplagan. Iustus

    Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow C (1996) The trouble with the adversary system in a postmodern, multicultural world. William Mary Law Rev 38:5–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi-Kiesiläinen J (2003) Rikosprosessin malleista ja funktioista. In: Pohjoiseen M (ed) Juhlakirja Professori Jyrki Virolainen 26.2.2003. Lapin yliopiston oikeustieteiden tiedekunta 2003 s. 337–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Nousiainen K (1993) Prosessin herruus. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • OMML 69/2012. Todistelu yleisissä tuomioistuimissa. Oikeusministeriön mietintöjä ja lausuntoja 69/2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Saranpää T (2010) Näyttöenemmyysperiaate riita-asiassa. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys

    Google Scholar 

  • SOU 1982:26. Processen i tingsrätt, del B. Statens offentliga utredningar 1982:26

    Google Scholar 

  • Takala J-P (1998) Moraalitunteet rikosten sovittelussa. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala J (2002) Luottamus tuomioistuimiin – mitä se on ja tarvitaanko sitä lisää? Lakimies, pp 3–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirkkonen T (1969) Suomen rikosprosessioikeus I. Toinen, uusittu painos. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirkkonen T (1974) Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus 1. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen M (2006) Asianosaisten ja tuomioistuimen roolit todistelussa. Lakimies, pp 1325–1343

    Google Scholar 

  • Turunen S (1999) Oikeudenkäyntiasiamiehen ja –avustajan vaitiolovelvollisuus oikeudenkäynnissä. Defensor Legis, pp 468–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (1990) Why people obey the law? Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Viitanen K (2001) Lautakunnallistuminen oikeudellisena ilmiönä. In: Sovittelu ja muut vaihtoehtoiset konfliktinratkaisumenetelmät. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J (1995) Lainkäyttö. Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J (2004) Rikosprosessioikeus II. Rikosprosessiin osalliset. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J, Martikainen P (2003) Pro et contra: tuomion perustelemisen keskeisiä kysymyksiä. Talentum

    Google Scholar 

  • Virolainen J, Pölönen P (2003) Rikosprosessin perusteet. WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bargen JM (2008) Gerichtsinterne mediation . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen. http://www.oikeus.fi/55281.htm. Visited 2013-09-23

  • Ylikangas H (1983) Miksi oikeus muuttuu? WSOY, Porvoo

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, University of Örebro, 70182, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

Authors
  1. Laura Ervo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Ervo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. JPS, 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

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ervo, L. (2014). Nordic Court Culture in Progress: Historical and Futuristic Perspectives. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation