Closing Comments: Harmonisation or Globalisation of Civil Procedure?

  • Marcel Storme


This chapter brings the subject of this book to conclusion. It recalls the work of the Storme working group and the political developments thereafter. It argues that further harmonisation within Europe should (1) start from the notion of equal access to justice, (2) not narrow the application of instruments to cross-border cases, (3) be based on horizontal harmonisation instead of vertical harmonisation, and (4) make a clear choice as to its interaction with national civil procedures with the so-called 28th model being the most feasible. It gives an overview of the contributions in this book and offers some concluding proposals. The author is of the opinion that the process of harmonisation and unification of procedural law on a European level appears to be an irreversible trend.


Member State Dispute Settlement Alternative Dispute Resolution Transitional Justice Procedural Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Freudenthal M (2009) Grensoverschrijdende erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging. Sdu, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  2. Storme M (1986) Perorazione per un diritto giudiziario Europeo. Rivista di diritto processuale 41:293–307Google Scholar
  3. Storme M (ed) (1994) Rapprochement du droit judiciaire de l’Union européenne/Approximation of judiciary law in the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Van Rhee CH (1999) Adam, ubi es? Het burgerlijk procesrecht als juridische wetenschap met Europese allure. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations