Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Harmonisation of Civil Procedure: Policy Perspectives

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

Abstract

European civil procedure is a rapidly growing field, judging by the numbers of directives and regulations churned out by the European Commission over the past decade. However, the practical impact of legislative acts passed under the provision of Article 81 TFEU remains very limited. These measures of ‘horizontal harmonisation’ create uniform rules for disputes of every kind, yet they remain confined to cross-border cases. As the Commission moved beyond the issues of international jurisdiction and enforcement of foreign judgments, it placed European institutions alongside the national ones, which continued to govern domestic disputes. This results in duplicative sets of procedural rules which place a heavy burden on the judges who have to work with them. Another thread of European legislation does not bear the label of civil procedure at all, but purports to harmonise the domestic system of law enforcement and protection of subjective rights in selected substantive areas, such as intellectual property rights, competition law and consumer law. Such measures of ‘vertical harmonisation’ remain confined to specific kinds of disputes, but they apply regardless of whether the dispute is international or domestic. In so doing, their practical impact is much greater than that of horizontal measures. For European lawmakers, it is essential to bear in mind that the policies of law enforcement and protection of property rights deeply involve principles of civil procedure and that account must be taken of this when drafting pertinent legislation.

Professor of German and European Private Law and Civil Procedure, University of Bonn (Germany) and Professor of Fundamentals of Private Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam (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.

    OJ 1997 No. C 340, 1 et seq.

  2. 2.

    ECJ 1 March 2005, Case C-281/02, ECR I-1383 (Owusu v Jackson) paras 34, 38 et seq.

  3. 3.

    ECJ 23 April 2009, Case C-533/07, ECR I-3327 (Falco Privatstiftung v Weller-Lindhorst) para 21.

  4. 4.

    Regulation No. 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 012.

  5. 5.

    Regulation No. 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, OJ 2000, L 160.

  6. 6.

    Regulation No. 1206/2001 on Cooperation between the Courts of the Member States in the Taking of Evidence in Civil or Commercial Matters, OJ 2001, L 174.

  7. 7.

    Directive No. 2003/8/EC to Improve Access to Justice in Cross-border Disputes by Establishing Minimum Common Rules relating to Legal Aid for such Disputes, OJ 2003, L 26.

  8. 8.

    Regulation No. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, OJ 2004, L 143/15.

  9. 9.

    Regulation No. 1896/2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure OJ 2006, L 399.

  10. 10.

    Regulation No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ 2007, L 199.

  11. 11.

    Regulation No. 1393/2007 on the Service in the Member States of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (service of documents), OJ 2007, L 324/50, and repealing Regulation No. 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324).

  12. 12.

    Directive 2008/52/EC on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ 2008, L 136.

  13. 13.

    Regulation No. 2201/2003 concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility, OJ 2003, L 338.

  14. 14.

    Regulation No. 4/2009 on Jurisdiction, Applicable law, Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions and Cooperation in Matters relating to Maintenance Obligations, OJ 2009, L 7.

  15. 15.

    Recitals (2) and (3) Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001, L 012; ECJ 1 March 2005, Case C-281/02, ECR I-1383 (Owusu v Jackson) (1456) para 25; ECJ 7 February 2006, ECR I-1145 Opinion 1/03, para 145.

  16. 16.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure, 25.05.2004, COM(2004) 173 final/3, 7 et seq, 20.

  17. 17.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, 15.3.2005, COM(2005) 87 final, 11.

  18. 18.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European order for payment procedure, 25.05.2004, COM(2004) 173 final/3, 7.

  19. 19.

    Regulation No. 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, OJ 2006, L 399.

  20. 20.

    Regulation No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ 2007, L 199.

  21. 21.

    Kramer 2008, 253 et seq; Kramer 2010, 17 et seq.

  22. 22.

    The court order made under the domestic procedure may even be enforced in other Member States under Regulation No. 805/2004 as a European enforcement order for uncontested claims. As to modifications of Section 703d ZPO in the European context, cf. Voit 2009, para 2.

  23. 23.

    Wagner 1998, 353 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Policy Options for Progress Towards a European Contract Law, Comments on the issues raised in the Green Paper from the Commission of 1 July 2010, COM (2010) 348 final, 2011, paras 69 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Green Paper on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses, 1.7.2010, COM (2010) 348 final, 9 et seq; Beale 2007, 260 and 269 et seq.

  26. 26.

    See Sects. 5.2.1 and 5.2.2.

  27. 27.

    Wagner 2007, 711.

  28. 28.

    BGH, NJW (Neue Juristische Wochenschrift) 1958, 1491, 1492; NJW 1990, 3151 = ZZP (Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess) 104 (1991), 203 with critical note Stürner = JZ (Juristenzeitung) 1991, 630 with critical discussion Schlosser, JZ 1991, 599; BGH, NJW 1997, 128, 129; 2000, 1108, 1109; BAG (Bundesarbeitsgericht), NJW 2004, 2848, 2851; in the same vein Leipold 2005, paras 26 et seq.

  29. 29.

    For a critical account, cf. Wagner 2007, 706 et seq.

  30. 30.

    For their interpretation, cf. Andrews 2003, ch. 18.

  31. 31.

    Wagner 2004, 69 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Cf. Issacharoff and Miller 2009.

  33. 33.

    White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC anti-trust rules, COM (2008) 165 final, 4.

  34. 34.

    Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress, COM (2008) 794 final.

  35. 35.

    Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress, COM (2008) 794 final, 16, paras 54 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Cf. White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC anti-trust rules, COM (2008)165 final, 2 et passim, referring to then Arts. 81 and 82 EC.

  37. 37.

    Wagner 2011.

  38. 38.

    For a thorough discussion, cf. Wagner 2011, 61 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 19.05.1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests (OJ 1998 L 166/51).

  40. 40.

    For the problems raised in German law, cf. Greger 2000, 399, 406 et seq.

  41. 41.

    An English translation of the statute may be found on the homepage of the Federal Ministry of Justice, at http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/1110/KapMuG_english.pdf (last consulted in June 2011).

  42. 42.

    For details, cf. Wagner 2006, 115 et seq; Wagner 2011, 66 et seq.

  43. 43.

    For details, cf. Wagner 2002, 995 et seq, 999.

  44. 44.

    For a critical discussion, cf. Dam 1994, 247, 249 et seq.

  45. 45.

    BGHZ 62, 29, 36 et seq = NJW 1974, 315, 317; BGH NJW 1976, 916; NJW-RR 1998, 331, 332; RGZ 94, 248, 250; cf. also Wagner 2009, paras 199 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Directive 2008/52/EC, OJ 2008, L 136, 3 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Cf. also Recital No. 24 to Directive 2008/52/EC.

  48. 48.

    Wagner 2010, 794.

  49. 49.

    Wagner 2010, 794.

  50. 50.

    Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress, COM (2008) 794 final, para 39.

  51. 51.

    Wagner 2011, 81 et seq.

  52. 52.

    For the interpretation of the public policy proviso in International Arbitration, see ECJ 1 June1999, Case C-126/97, ECR I-3055 (Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV) (3092 et seq) paras 38 et seq.

  53. 53.

    ECJ 10 April 1984, Case C-14/83, ECR I-1892 (von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) (1908) paras 23 et seq; ECJ, 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01, ECR 2003, I-10239 (Köbler v Republik Österreich) (10310) paras 50 et seq.

  54. 54.

    ECJ 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01, ECR I-10239 (Köbler v Republik Österreich), paras 32 et seq; ECJ 10 April 1984, Case C-14/83, ECR 1892 (von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen) (1909) para 28.

  55. 55.

    ECJ 23 March 1982, Case C-102/81, ECR 1982, 1095 (1110) (Nordsee v Reederei Mond) para 10; ECJ 1 June 1999, Case C-126/97, ECR 1999, I-3055 (Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV) (3092 et seq) paras 34, 40.

  56. 56.

    ECJ 26 October 2006, Case C-168/05, ECR 2006, I-10421 (Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL) (10445 et seq) paras 24 et seq = SchiedsVZ 2007, 46 with note G. Wagner.

References

  • Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale H (2007) The future of the common frame of reference. Eur Rev Contract Law 3:257–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dam KW (1994) The economic underpinnings of patent law. J Legal Stud 23:247–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2000) Verbandsklagen und Prozeßrechtsdogmatik. Neue Entwicklungen in einer schwierigen Beziehung. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 113:399–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Issacharoff S, Miller G (2009) Will aggregate litigation come to Europe? New York University law and economics working papers, paper 156

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2008) A major step in the harmonization of procedural law in Europe: the European small claims procedures. In: Jongbloed AW (ed) The 13th world congress of procedural law: the Belgian and Dutch reports, Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 253–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer XE (2010) Enhancing enforcement in the European union. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability, tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 17–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, policy options for progress towards a European contract law, comments on the issues raised in the Green Paper from the commission of 1 July 2010, COM (2010) 348 final, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Voit W (2009) In Musielak Z (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. Franz Vahlen, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (1998) Prozessverträge—Privatautonomie im Verfahrensrecht. J.C.B Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2002) The economics of harmonization: the case of contract law. Common Market Law Rev 29:995–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2004) The purpose and importance of preliminary and summary proceedings. In: Gilles P (ed) Prozessrecht und rechtskulturen. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden–Baden, pp 69–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2006) Neue perspektiven im schadensersatzrecht: kommerzialisierung, strafschadensersatz, kollektivschadensersatz. In: Verhandlungen des 66. Deutschen Juristentags Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2007) Urkundenedition durch prozessparteien-auskunftspflicht und weigerungsrechte, Juristenzeitung, pp 706–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2009) Münchener kommentar zum BGB. C. H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2010) Grundstrukturen eines deutschen Mediationsgesetzes. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74:794–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2011) Collective redress—categories of loss and legislative options. Law Q Rev 127:55–67

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Gerhard Wagner

  2. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Gerhard Wagner

Authors
  1. Gerhard Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard Wagner .

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

Wagner, G. (2012). Harmonisation of Civil Procedure: Policy Perspectives. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation