Skip to main content

Preparatory Proceedings in Norway: Efficiency by Flexibility and Case Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings

Abstract

Active use of the preparatory stage to promote a concentrated main hearing is a key element in Norwegian civil procedure. The judge actively manages the cage and prepares it for the main hearing. Judicial discretion is an important tool to allow the judge to tailor the proceedings to the need of the parties. If an issue or question is unclear, the judge has a duty to help the parties clarify the issues and provide guidance by helping parties identify disputed and undisputed facts and argument and to separate core questions from questions that are more peripheral. The judge has a duty to promote settlement either by judicial settlement efforts or by diverting the case to court-connected mediation. When appropriate, the case can be disposed of during the preparatory stage. The format of preparatory proceedings is flexible: the judge has discretion to combine written and oral proceedings and use telephone hearings. The 2008 reform of Norwegian civil procedure, which emphasised the role of preparatory proceedings, has made civil litigation swifter and cheaper. It has also enhanced the quality of proceedings and the outcome. In the final part, Finnish and Norwegian preparatory proceedings are compared. Norway has a long tradition of concentrated oral hearings, promotion of settlement and an active judge, whereas these ideas were introduced in Finland only in 1993. The comparison explores how the underlying structure and culture of civil proceedings influence the implementation of the main hearing model in countries with a similar (legal) culture.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    The total annual number of cases is higher than 110,000. The statistics are on file with the author.

  2. 2.

    Skoghøy (2001) pp. 486–500.

  3. 3.

    Lov 17.6.2005 nr. 90 om mekling og rettergang i sivile tvister (tvisteloven). Unofficial English translation available at http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-20050617-090-eng.pdf. An English and a German translation is available in Lipp and Fredriksen (2011), p. 135 et seq.

  4. 4.

    NOU 2001: 32, pp. 127–129.

  5. 5.

    NOU 2001: 32, pp. 132, 140–141.

  6. 6.

    NOU 2001: 32, pp. 710–713 and 749–750, Skoghøy (2014), pp. 620–627.

  7. 7.

    NOU 2001: 32, p. 750.

  8. 8.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment for § 9-5, comment 2. For a different opinion, see Skoghøy (2014), p. 625.

  9. 9.

    Skoghøy (2014), pp. 627–629.

  10. 10.

    Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013).

  11. 11.

    See also Robberstad (2015), 189.

  12. 12.

    NOU 2001:32, pp. 138–140, 708–710.

  13. 13.

    NOU 2001: 32, pp. 133–138.

  14. 14.

    Skoghøy (2014), pp. 630–631.

  15. 15.

    Skoghøy (2014), p. 620, NOU 2001: 32, pp. 145–146.

  16. 16.

    Nylund (2014); Bernt (2011), p. 111, NOU 2001: 32, pp. 217–218.

  17. 17.

    Skoghøy (2014), p. 38 Bernt (2011), pp. 446–447.

  18. 18.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment § 9-9.

  19. 19.

    Skoghøy (2014), pp. 629–630.

  20. 20.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment § 9-10

  21. 21.

    Under the Civil Procedure Act the Gulating Court of Appeals in Bergen had a scheme of giving priority to short hearings to dealing with court congestion. If the parties agreed to limit the hearing to a single day in court, the hearing would be held within a few months of the appeal. The parties were responsible to limit the length of the presentation and closing speech and the number of witnesses to fit in a short hearing. So far no court has to the author’s knowledge tried a similar scheme under the Dispute Act.

  22. 22.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment § 9-16, nr. 1, NOU 2001: 32, pp. 759–761.

  23. 23.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment § 10-2.

  24. 24.

    Mykland (2010).

  25. 25.

    See Bernt (2011) and Nylund (2014), pp. 111–113.

  26. 26.

    Numbers are from the Norwegian Courts Administration (Domstolsadministrasjonen), and are on file with the author.

  27. 27.

    See Nylund (2014), pp. 113–117.

  28. 28.

    Adrian and Mykland (2014).

  29. 29.

    Schei et al. (2012), comment for § 10-2, NOU 2001: 32, pp. 341–342.

  30. 30.

    The average cost in 2009–2011 was NOK 15,962 (about EUR 1,800) for small claims and NOK 110,392 (about EUR 12,300) for regular cases. The number includes the total costs for the claimant and defendant. Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013).

  31. 31.

    Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013). The numbers are from the period 2006–2012.

  32. 32.

    http://aarsmelding.domstol.no/#!/oversikt/tingrett. Norway has the second lowest litigation rate in Europe, surpassed only by Finland.

  33. 33.

    CEPEJ (2014), p. 32, 48, 158. Norway has the second lowest number of civil litigious cases per 100,000 inhabitants in Europe (p. 203).

  34. 34.

    Ervasti (2009a), p. 21. The numbers are from 2008.

  35. 35.

    Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013), pp. 136–137. The numbers are from 2009–2011. The amount is only about NOK 16,000, or EUR 1,780 for small claims.

  36. 36.

    CEPEJ (2014), p. 12, 195 and 202.

  37. 37.

    Ervo (2014) Ervo (2015).

  38. 38.

    Information is based on the annual reports from the courts, available on www.oikeus.fi.

  39. 39.

    Ervasti (2009a), p. 9.

  40. 40.

    See also Stürner (2002), p. 504.

  41. 41.

    See Sect. 2.2.1.

  42. 42.

    See Sect. 2.3.1.2.

  43. 43.

    Ervasti (2009a).

  44. 44.

    Nylund (2014).

  45. 45.

    Ervasti (2009b), p. 51. In 2008 almost 2,500 cases were settled in oral preparatory hearings and main hearings. Annually about 5,000–6,000 cases are heard in oral preparatory hearings or main hearings or both.

  46. 46.

    See Sect. 2.6.1.

  47. 47.

    Judicial settlement efforts and court-connected mediation are compared in more detail in Chap. 9.

References

  • Adrian L, Mykland S (2014) Creativity in court-connected mediation: myth or reality? Negot J 30(4):421–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernt C (2011) Meklerrollen ved mekling i domstolene. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • CEPEJ (2014) European judicial systems – Edition 2014 (2012 data): efficiency and quality of justice., Council of Europe

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K (2009a) Käräjäoikeuksien riita-asiat 2008. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimustiedonantoja, vol 93. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervasti K (2009b) Riita-asiat tuomioistuimissa. In: Lasola M (ed) Oikeusolot 2009. Katsaus oikeudellisten instituutioiden toimintaan ja oikeuden saatavuuteen, vol 244, vol. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimuksia, Helsinki, pp 43–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2014) Nordic court culture in progress: historical and futuristic perspectives. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Access to court and court-annexed mediation in the Nordic countries. Springer, Cham, pp 383–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervo L (2015) Comparative analysis between East-Scandinavian countries. Scand Stud Law 61:135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013) Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) (2011) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mykland S (2010) Særmøter som rasjonelle myter? Tidskrift for Rettsvitenskap 123:288–326

    Google Scholar 

  • NOU 2001: 32 Rett på sak. Lov om tvisteløsning (tvisteloven) Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2001:32

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund A (2014) The Many Ways of Civil Mediation in Norway. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Access to courts and court-annexed mediation in the Nordic countries. Springer, Cham, pp 97–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Robberstad A (2015) Sivilprosess, 3rd edn. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schei T, Bårdsen A, Nordén DB, Reusch C, Øie TM (2012) Tvisteloven: Kommentarutgave Bind I, vol 1, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoghøy JEA (2001) Tvistemål, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Skoghøy JEA (2014) Tvisteløsning, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner R (2002) Zur Struktur des europäischen Zivilprozesses. In: Roth H, Gottwald P (eds) Festschrift für Ekkehard Schumann zum 70. Geburtstag. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 491–505

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Nylund .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nylund, A. (2016). Preparatory Proceedings in Norway: Efficiency by Flexibility and Case Management. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29323-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29325-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics