Skip to main content

Electronification of Civil Litigation and Civil Justice – The Future of the Traditional Civil Procedure Facing the Electronification

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 15))

Abstract

This article deals with the so-called “Electronic Justice” as one important aspect of procedural law and of procedural law comparison worldwide. Basically one can say that the topic of electronic civil justice and electronic civil litigation is a very new one especially under scientific regard. This contribution focuses the scientific discussion on the “Electronic Justice” nowadays and in future development – from a German point of view. A good reason for thinking about this topic in Germany are the recent legislative actions in German civil justice system – “Formvorschriftenanpassungsgesetz” (2001), “Zustellungsreformgesetz” (2002), “ZPO-Reformgesetz” (2002) and last, but not least the “Justice Communication Act” (2005). The development of e-civil litigation and e-justice in Germany is an example for specific actual – and probably future – problems and questions of e-justice. These problems can be described easily with the following catch words: Pragmatism versus conception of e-justice, formalism versus content of e-procedural law, detailed regulations of e-procedural law versus lack of basic regulations of e-justice, fixation on IT-instruments versus lack of theoretical discussion. Finally we can summarize that the well-known difference between law in books and law in practice also exists in the new areas of civil litigation – not only, but also in Germany.

The author teaches as Privatdozent at the Institute for Comparative Law at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University of Frankfurt/M. See for further details esp. (on line): http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/l_Personal/priv_doz/fischer/index.html (04.04.2011).

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

Access this chapter

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.

    Compare here for a choice of articles to this issue: Regarding Germany esp. W. Kilian, Juristische Entscheidung und elektronische Datenverarbeitung (Frankfurt/M: Athenäum-Verlag, 1974); A. Rossnagel, CR 1994, 498 ff.; M. Herberger, in Prozeßrecht an der Jahrtausendwende, ed. P. Gilles, (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1999), 33 ff.; Stadler in ZZP 111 (2002), 413 ff.; P. Gilles, in ZZP 118 (2005), 399 ff.; see also N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004); N. Fischer, Kritische Justiz (2005), 152 ff.; N. Fischer, in DRiZ 2005, 90 ff.; see for Austria here only G. Kodek, in ZZP 111 (2002), 445 ff.; see also the speech of the author (topic: comparison Lithuania-Germany) on the International Conference “Business Law in Transition in a Comparative Context”of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (ISDC), 03 July 2008 in Lausanne, published in Business Law in Transition, A. Comparative Perspective on Eastern Europe, Reports of the ISDC Colloquium ed. E. Lein, J. Skala and L. Heckendorn Urschuler, (Zurich et al.: Schulthess, 2010), 229.

  2. 2.

    See e.g. P. Gilles, Prozeßrechtsvergleichung (Köln: Carl Heymanns, 1996) (also for the different tasks of Procedural Law Comparison); P. Gilles, in Direito processual comparado – XIII. World Conference of Procedural Law, ed. A. Pellegrini Grinover and P. Calmon, 826–41 (Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2007).

  3. 3.

    Compare for the actual world report for the civil law countries E. Jeuland, in Direito processual comparado – XIII. World Conference of Procedural Law, ed. A. Pellegrini Grinover and P. Calmon, 152–85 (Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2007); for the actual world report for the common law countries J. Walker and G. Watson, in Direito processual comparado – XIII. World Conference of Procedural Law, ed. A. Pellegrini Grinover and P. Calmon, 119–51 (Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2007).

  4. 4.

    “Gesetz zur Anpassung der Formvorschriften des Privatrechts und anderer Vorschriften an den modernen Geschäftsverkehr” from 13.07.2001, BGBl. I. p. 1542. This act is the legislative execution of Art. 9 of the EC-Directive RL 2000/31/EG (ABl. EG Nr. L 178, p. 1). See also the “Gesetz über rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für den elektronischen Geschäftsverkehr”(Elektronisches Geschäftsverkehrsgesetz, EGG) from 14.02.2001 (BGBl. I, S. 3721, 3724), effective since 21.12.2001, which has leaded to the modification of § 1031 Sec. 1 and Sec. 5 ZPO.

  5. 5.

    “Gesetz über Rahmenbedingungen für elektronische Signaturen” from 16.05.2001, BGBl. I p. 876. See esp. A. Rossnagel, in NJW 2001, 1817 ff.

  6. 6.

    “Gesetz zur Reform des Verfahrens bei Zustellungen” from 25.06.2001, BGBl. I p. 1206. Compare e.g. Rosenberg Schwab, Gottwald, Zivilprozessrecht, 16th ed. (München: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2004), 469.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. the “Verordnung über den elektronischen Rechtsverkehr beim BGH”(Elektronische Rechtsverkehrsverordnung – ERVVOBGH) from 26.11.2001 (BGBl. I p. 3225); also Fritsche in NJ 2002, 169 ff., 177; Barth in ZAP 8/2004, 395 f.

  8. 8.

    See for the “ZPO-Reformgesetz” from 27.07.2001 (BGBl. I p. 1887, changed pp. 3138, 3179), effective since 01.01.2002, see here N. Fischer, Zivilverfahrens- und Verfassungsrecht (Berlin: VWF, 2002), esp. 19 ff.

  9. 9.

    See esp. Borchert in CR 2002, 854 ff.; Schultzky, NJW 2003, pp. 313 ff.; see for the video-conference in German Criminal Procedure Code (StPO) only § 247a StPO.

  10. 10.

    “Gesetz über die Verwendung elektronischer Kommunikationsformen in der Justiz” from 22.03.2005, BGBl. I p. 837; compare e.g. N. Fischer, in DRiZ 2005, 90 ff.

  11. 11.

    See also Krüger and Bütter in MDR 2003, 181 ff., 183.

  12. 12.

    Compare for further details N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), esp. 17 ff.

  13. 13.

    Compare for further information P. Gilles in ZZP 118 (2005), 399 ff.

  14. 14.

    See for further details N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), esp. 24 ff.

  15. 15.

    See for the results here Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger in NJW 1995, 2441 ff.; see also Strempel and Renning in ZRP 1994, 144 ff.

  16. 16.

    Compare only H. Fiedler and F. Haft, Informationstechnische Unterstützung von Richtern, Staatsanwälten und Rechtspflegern (Köln: Bundesanzeiger 1992).

  17. 17.

    See esp. Viefhues and Volensky in DRiZ 1996, 13 ff., 14; Strempel and Götzel in DRiZ 1990, 121 ff., 125 f.

  18. 18.

    Compare here esp. Viefhues in CR 2001, 556 ff., 560; von Lewinski in BRAK-Mitt. 2004, 12 ff.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. Viefhues in CR 2001, 556 ff., 560; diff. E. Schneider, in NJW 1998, 1844 ff.

  20. 20.

    Compare E. Schneider, in NJW 1998, 1844 ff.; see also Hahn, in the discussion report of Iqbal, ZZP 111 (2002), 491 ff., 494; Schwachheim, NJW 1999, 621 ff., 622; see for the German judicature e.g. BGH, decision from 18.12.1975, VII fR A23/75 NJW 1976, 966 f.

  21. 21.

    So Hoeren in NJW 2000, 188 ff.; see also Hoeren in NJW 1998, 2849 ff.

  22. 22.

    See for diff. positions e.g. D. Ulmer, in DRiZ 1991, 280 ff., 283 f.; M. Zöller, in DRiZ 1991, 326 ff., 331 f.; Ernesti in DRiZ 1987, 129 ff., 137 f.; Herr in DRiZ 1986, 374 ff.; see also Werner in NJW 1997, 293 ff., 294, with additional references.

  23. 23.

    See Part 5.3. of the Civil Procedure Rules: “Where any of these Rules or any practice direction requires a document to be signed, that requirement shall be satisfied, if the signature is printed by computer or other mechanical means.” See also Stadler in ZZP 111 (2002), 413 ff., 418, 435.

  24. 24.

    Compare (with further references) Zöller, 21th ed. Greger § 130 ZPO, Rn. 11; E. Schneider, in NJW 1998, 1844 ff; see also M. Schmidt, in BB 1999, 1125 ff., 1127.

  25. 25.

    See here only N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004) 59 ff.

  26. 26.

    Compare esp. the relevant World Report from E. Jeuland, in Direito processual comparado–XIII. World Conference of Procedural Law, ed. A. Pellegrini Grinover and P. Calmon, 152–85 (Rio de Janeiro, 2007); see also N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), 59 ff.; see for the both German national Reports: P. Gilles, in Neue Tendenzen im Prozessrecht, ed. P. Gilles and T. Pfeiffer, 153–77 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008); N. Fischer, in Neue Tendenzen im Prozessrecht, ed. P. Gilles and T. Pfeiffer, 85–152 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008).

  27. 27.

    See N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004) esp. 36 ff.

  28. 28.

    Compare for the right of a legal hearing in German Constitutional Law (see Art. 103 Sec. 1 GG) esp. BVerfGE 55, pp. 1 ff., 6; see also N. Fischer, Zivilverfahrens- und Verfassungsrecht (Berlin: VWF, 2002), 15.

  29. 29.

    See for another opinion Stadler in ZZP 111 (2002), 413 ff., 418, 437; see also Schultzky in NJW 2003, 313 ff., 315.

  30. 30.

    Compare for example the wording of § 128 Sec. 1 ZPO (the regulation of the video-conference), see for a critical point of view towards this regulation P. Gilles, in Neue Tendenzen im Prozessrecht, ed. P. Gilles and T. Pfeiffer, 153–77 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008), 167, 169; concerning § 130a ZPO see Dästner in NJW 2001, 3469 ff.; vs. Fritsche in NJ 2002, 169 ff.

  31. 31.

    See only P. Gilles, in Neue Tendenzen im Prozessrecht, ed. P. Gilles and T. Pfeiffer, 153–77 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2008), 163 ff.

  32. 32.

    Compare N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), 40 ff.

  33. 33.

    See here §§ 267 ff. StGB (German Criminal Code) and esp. § 202a for the so-called Hacking, and § 263a STGB for Computer-Fraud and §§ 269, 303a, 303b for Computer-Sabotage. Compare to this argument in detail N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), 41 ff.

  34. 34.

    Compare esp. the legal situation in Portugal: Since the year 2003 it is mandatory to send pleadings in appeal cases only via data medium (see Art. 150 Sec. 1, 152 Sec. 6 CPC Portugal); see also Stadler in ZZP 111 (2002), 413 ff., 425.

  35. 35.

    See N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), 65. According to this ideas a new working group of the European e-justice and e-civil procedure law was founded on this conference with several members from different European countries (about further activities will be reported).

  36. 36.

    Compare for this claim already N. Fischer, Kritische Justiz (2005), 152 ff.

  37. 37.

    This claim arised already in the year 1899 when the old German High Court of the German Empire (Reichsgericht) postulated this for term keeping pleadings (see RGZ 44, pp. 369 f.: filing of an appeal by telegram).

  38. 38.

    See F. Stein, in his preamble of the first edition (1921) of his famous “Grundriss des Zivilprozeßrechts und des Konkursrechts”.

  39. 39.

    Compare for further details N. Fischer, Justiz-Kommunikation (Berlin: VWF, 2004), esp. 64–71.

  40. 40.

    See N. Fischer, Kritische Justiz (2005), 152 ff., 161.

  41. 41.

    A famous example you will find in O. Jauernig, Zivilprozeßrecht, 26th ed. (München: C.H. Beck, 2000), 84.

  42. 42.

    See also P. Gilles, in the discussion report of Iqbal, in ZZP 111 (2002), 491 ff., 491.; B. Hahn, Anwaltliche Rechtsausführungen im Zivilprozeß (Köln: Dt. Anwaltverlag, 1998), 430 ff.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolaj Fischer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fischer, N. (2012). Electronification of Civil Litigation and Civil Justice – The Future of the Traditional Civil Procedure Facing the Electronification. In: Kengyel, M., Nemessányi, Z. (eds) Electronic Technology and Civil Procedure. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4072-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics