Personal Participation and In Absentia Trials in Civil Proceedings Imposing Pecuniary Penalties Within the European Judicial Area

  • Elena D’AlessandroEmail author
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)


This chapter explores the role of personal participation in civil proceedings imposing civil pecuniary penalties within the European judicial area. It also deals with the civil trial in absentia in order to determine whether a civil default judgment rendered in a EU Member State shall be considered, in itself, as a penalty against a defendant who deliberately fails to appear at the hearing.


Civil pecuniary penalties Default judgments Participatory rights In absentia trials 



Civil Procedure Code


Court of Justice of the European Union


European Convention on Human Rights


European Court of Human Rights


European Union


European Charter of Fundamental Rights


Italian Civil Procedure Code


  1. Andrews N (2013) Andrews on civil processes, vol I. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Assy R (2015) Injustice in person. The right to self-representation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermann G, Picard E (2008) Introduction to French law. Kluwer International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  4. Bove M (2016) Sull’introduzione di illeciti con sanzioni pecuniarie dal punto di vista del processualcivilista (note a margine del d.lgs. n. 7 del 15/1/2016). Accessed 21 Feb 2017
  5. Callies GP (2015) Rome regulations. Commentary, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappelletti M, Perillo JM (1965) Civil procedure in Italy. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charney J (1974) Need for constitutional protection for defendants in civil penalty cases. Cornell Law Rev 59:478–517Google Scholar
  8. Crifó C (2009) Cross border enforcement of judgment. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Alessandro E (2007) Pronunce americane di condanna al pagamento di punitive damages e problemi di riconoscimento in Italia. Rivista di diritto civile, 383–406Google Scholar
  10. D’Alessandro E (2017) Riconoscimento di sentenze di condanna a danni punitivi: tanto tuonò che piovve. Foro italiano, 2639–2642Google Scholar
  11. Douchy-Oudot M (2013–2015) Jugement par défaut et opposition. Juris Clausseur Procédure civile, fasc. 540Google Scholar
  12. Ferrari F, Bocharova N (2015) The astreinte in the Italian and Russian administrative (judicial) and civil proceedings. Russian Law J 3:13–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gruber U (2016) § 891. In: Münchener Kommentar zur ZPO, 5 Auflage. Accessed 21 Feb 2017
  14. Herzog P, Weser M (1967) Civil procedure in France. Springer, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennet W (2000) The enforcement of judgments in Europe. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuckes N (2006) Civil due process, criminal due process. Yale Law Policy Rev 25:1–61Google Scholar
  17. Lavarini B (2016) I profili processuali dei recenti provvedimenti di depenalizzazione. Archivio penale:845–863Google Scholar
  18. Luiso FP (2015) Diritto processuale civile, I, 8th edn. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupoi MA (2012) Recent developments in Italian civil procedure law. Civil Proced Rev 3:25–51Google Scholar
  20. Meurkens RC (2014) Punitive damages. Wolters Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  21. Morris C (1931) Punitive damages in Tort cases. Harv Law Rev 44:1173–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Murray P, Stürner R (2004) German civil justice. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  23. Musielak HJ, Voit W (2016) ZPO, 13th edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  24. Polinsky M, Shavell S (1988) Punitive damages: an economical analysis. Harv Law Rev 111:869–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prütting H (2016) § 331. In: Münchener Kommentar zur ZPO, 5th edn. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  26. Regan D (2016) Much ado about nothing. New Law J 166:18Google Scholar
  27. Settem OJ (2015) Applications of the “Fair Hearing” Norm in ECHR Article 6 (1) to civil proceedings. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  28. Sharkey CM (2003) Punitive damages as social damages. Yale Law J 113:347–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stone P (2007) The Rome II regulation on choice of law in Tort. Ankara Law Rev 4:95–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sunstein CR, Kahneman D, Schkade D (1998) Assessing punitive damages (with notes on cognition and valuation in law). Yale Law J 107:2071–2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawUniversity of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations