Skip to main content

Transnational Commercial Litigation. Discussing the 2020 Model Rules and the 2019 Hague and 2018 Singapore Conventions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law

Part of the book series: LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law ((LCFSCFL,volume 2))

  • 195 Accesses

Abstract

Businesses involved in cross-border litigation face two hurdles. The first concerns venue selection. Divergences between procedural systems, concerning the powers and duties of the court and the parties, the latitude of res judicata, etc. are substantial even amongst neighboring countries. The ELI-Unidroit committee of experts discarded the option of drafting a “restatement” of common European civil procedure principles and put great efforts in devising a set of “best practices”, i.e. model rules, addressed to national lawmakers. The second hurdle is faced by the winning party seeking to enforce judgment outside the state of the forum. As regional organizations are losing momentum (Brexit), the 2019 Hague Convention of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment and the 2018 Singapore Convention on settlement agreements might be an appealing way of keeping the grounds of refusal of recognition at a minimum shared number. The Hague Convention has been already signed by Uruguay and Ukraine, and, lately, by the EU. Is a future signature by the UK likely? Part I of this Article focuses on how classical tenets of civil procedure law are addressed by the Model Rules. Part II of this Article assesses strengths and weaknesses of the new Conventions and makes tentative forecast.

Prof. Claudio Consolo is the Author of Sects. 1.2 and 1.3.

Prof. Marcello Stella is the Author of Sects. 1, 1.1, 1.4, 2, 3.

Claudio Consolo is Professor of Civil Procedure and Professor of Arbitration and International Arbitration Law at the University of Rome “Sapienza” in Rome, Italy.

Marcello Stella is Associate Professor of Civil Procedure at the University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy.

Prof. Avv. Claudio Consolo in Milan and Verona, Italy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
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.

    See the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, 13.10.2015, COM(2015) 495 final.

  2. 2.

    In a vast literature, see Prechal and Kees (2014).

  3. 3.

    Hazard and Taruffo (1997).

  4. 4.

    Hazard et al. (2001); Stürner (2000).

  5. 5.

    For an evaluation of the Model Rules concerning evidence see Inchausti and Stürner (2019).

  6. 6.

    In modern times, the refusal by continental procedural lawmakers to allow a greater discretion of the courts in directing the proceedings is explained by Verde (2017), with the distrust by citizens and their counsels towards the judicial body. The lack of discretionary powers forces the procedural lawmakers to devise new rites and fast tracks. But that is no effective answer to the crisis of the civil justice (in Italy), because of the immense amount of arrear caseload.

  7. 7.

    Andrews (2008a, b).

  8. 8.

    See especially Zuckerman (1995). For an overview of the opinion expressed by English scholars on the Woolf Reform and its emphasis on case management, see De Cristofaro (2010). See also Trocker (2012).

  9. 9.

    See De la Oliva Santos and Dìez-Picazo Giménez (1999).

  10. 10.

    Art. 80, third indent, of the previous French Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Decree 13 October 1965, expressly provided that the court had the power to authorize the amendment of the initial claims. The formula was not copied in the new Civil Procedure Code. However, the power to authorize claim amendments may be inferred by the still recognized power of the court to extend procedural time limits to be benefit of the parties, under Art. 764 n.c.p.c. See Vincent and Guinchard (1999).

  11. 11.

    Annotated by Merlin (2016); Consolo (2015); Motto (2015); D’Alessandro (2016).

  12. 12.

    Consolo (2001).

  13. 13.

    Annotated by Consolo and Godio (2019).

  14. 14.

    On the influence of arbitration best practices upon procedural legislators, see the general reflections by Pfeiffer (2019).

  15. 15.

    See London Borough of Haringey v O’Brien (Practice and Procedure: Estoppel or Abuse of Process) [2016] UKEAT 0004_16_2212 (22 December 2016).

  16. 16.

    Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 (3 July 2013), quoting Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93.

  17. 17.

    Habscheid (1985).

  18. 18.

    Hazard (2014).

  19. 19.

    On both conceptions, see Consolo (1989).

  20. 20.

    For another comment on the Collective proceedings chapter, Smith (2019).

  21. 21.

    On which see Consolo (2019).

  22. 22.

    Smith (2019).

  23. 23.

    For an overview, Rumenov (2019). Guo (2020). Teitz (2019).

  24. 24.

    Liakopoulos (2019).

  25. 25.

    van Loon (2019). A critical review of the worldwide case law on jurisdiction on internet torts may be found in Stella (2020).

  26. 26.

    See Supreme Court’s decision no. 16601 of 5 July 2017 annotated by Consolo (2017).

  27. 27.

    On the compatibility of such measures with the Brussels I Regulation regime, see EU Court of Justice, judgment of 18 October 2011, case C-406/09, Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG, annotated by Mankowski (2012).

  28. 28.

    Franzina and Leandro (2019).

  29. 29.

    Deason (2019). Chua (2019).

  30. 30.

    “If the Convention merely obliged states to enforce settlement agreements but not also to treat settlement agreements as conclusive proof that a dispute had been resolved, many parties would not have been able to rely on the Convention to ensure that their settlement agreements would be given effect. The Convention’s relevance would have depended on how a particular dispute developed. A party that fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement could not have been assured that it would be able to avoid relitigating the dispute to secure compliance by the other party”: so, Schnabel (2019a, b).

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews N (2008b) English civil justice and remedies. Shinzan Sha, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua E (2019) Enforcement of international mediated settlements without the Singapore convention on mediation. Singap Acad Law J 31(Special Issue):572–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C (1989) Il ruolo del “giudicato formale” quale requisite per il riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere (spunti critico-analitici). Rivista di diritto processuale 932:1074

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C (2001) La trattazione nella fase introduttiva del processo: un primo bilancio nel (semi-)decennale. Giurisprudenza Italiana:1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C (2015) Le S.U. aprono alle domande “complanari”: ammissibili in primo grado ancorché (chiaramente e irriducibilmente) diverse da quella originaria cui si cumuleranno. Il Corriere Giuridico 7:968–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C (2017) Riconoscimento di sentenze, specie Usa e di giurie popolari, aggiudicanti risarcimenti punitivi o comunque sopracompensativi, se in regola con il nostro principio di legalità (che postula tipicità e financo prevedibilità e non coincide pertanto con il, di norma presente, due process of law). Il Corriere Giuridico 1055

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C (2019) La terza edizione della azione di classe è legge ed entra nel c.p.c. Uno sguardo d’insieme ad una amplissima disciplina. Il Corriere Giuridico:737–743

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolo C, Godio F (2019) Le Sezioni Unite di nuovo sulle domande cc.dd. complanari, ammissibili anche se introdotte in via di cumulo (purché non incondizionato) rispetto alla domanda originaria. Il Corriere Giuridico 2:267–274

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Alessandro E (2016) L’oggetto del giudizio di cognizione. Tra crisi delle categorie del diritto civile ed evoluzioni del diritto processuale. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro M (2010) Case Management e riforma del processo civile, tra effettività della giurisdizione e diritto costituzionale al giusto processo. Rivista di diritto processuale 2:282–305

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Oliva Santos A, Dìez-Picazo Giménez I (1999) Derecho procesal civil. El proceso de declaraciòn. Editorial Centro de Estudios Ramòn Areces, Madrid, p 271

    Google Scholar 

  • Deason E (2019) What’s in name: The terms commercial and mediation in the Singapore convention on mediation. Cardozo J Conflict Resol 20(4):1149–1172

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina P, Leandro A (2019) La Convenzione dell’Aja del 2 luglio 2019 sul riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere: una prima lettura. Sidi-blog. http://www.sidiblog.org/2019/07/11/la-convenzione-dellaja-del-2-luglio-2019-sul-riconoscimento-delle-sentenze-straniere-una-prima-lettura/

  • Guo Y (2020) From conventions to protocols: conceptualizing changes to the international dispute resolution landscape. J Int Disput Settl 11:217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habscheid WJ (1985) Introduzione al diritto processuale civile comparato. Maggioli Editore, Rimini

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC Jr (2014) Some preliminary observations on the proposed ELI/UNIDROIT civil procedure project in the light of the experience of the ALI/UNIDROIT project. Unif Law Rev 19:176–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC Jr, Taruffo M (1997) Transnational rules of civil procedure rules and commentary. Cornell Int Law J 30:493

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard GC Jr, Taruffo M, Stürner R, Gidi A (2001) Rules of transnational civil procedure. Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 1085

    Google Scholar 

  • Inchausti FG, Stürner M (2019) Access to information and evidence in the ELI/UNIDROIT European rules on civil procedure: some fundamental aspects. Unif Law Rev 24:14–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liakopoulos D (2019) The Convention of the Hague of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Sentences: Approaches and Comments. Acta Universitatis Danubius Juridica 2:5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (2012) Vollstreckbarerklärung von EU-ausländischen Ordnungsgeldbeschlüssen zur Durchsetzung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen (“Realchemie/Bayer CropScience”). Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2012:85–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlin E (2016) Ammissibilità della mutatio libelli da “alternatività sostanziale” nel giudizio di primo grado. Rivista di diritto processuale 71:816–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Motto A (2015) Le Sezioni Unite sulla modificazione della domanda giudiziale. Il Foro italiano 11:3190

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer T (2019) The contribution of arbitration to the harmonization of procedural laws in Europe. Unif Law Rev 19(2):199–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S, Kees C (2014) The European acquis of civil procedure: constitutional aspects. Unif Law Rev 19(2):179–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumenov I (2019) Implications of the New 2019 Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments on the National Legal Systems of Countries in South Eastern Europe. EU Comp Law Iss Chall Ser 3:385–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel T (2019a) Recognition by any other name: Article 3 of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Cardozo J Conflict Resol 20(4):1181–1196

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel T (2019b) The Singapore Convention on Mediation: a framework for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of mediated settlements. Pepp Disp Resol Law J 19(1):1–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith V (2019) Redress through collective actions in Europe: ELI/UNIDROIT and European Commission proposals. Unif Law Rev 24:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stella M (2020) Profili processuali degli illeciti via internet. Wolters Kluwer-CEDAM, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner R (2000) Some European Remarks on a New Joint Project of the American Law Institute and UNIDROIT. Int Lawyer 34:1071–1086

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitz LE (2019) Another Hague Judgments Convention? Bucking the past to provide for the future. Duke J Comp Int Law 29:491–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Trocker N (2012) La formazione del diritto processuale europeo. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Loon H (2019) Towards a Global Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters. Collection of Papers, Faculty of Law Nis 82:15–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Verde G (2017) Diritto processuale civile. I. Parte generale. Zanichelli, Bononia, p 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent J, Guinchard S (1999) Procédure civile. Dalloz, Paris, p 803

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman A (1995) A reform of civil procedure: rationing procedure rather than access to justice. J Law Soc 22:155–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Consolo, C., Stella, M. (2024). Transnational Commercial Litigation. Discussing the 2020 Model Rules and the 2019 Hague and 2018 Singapore Conventions. In: Heidemann, M. (eds) The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law. LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28496-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28497-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics