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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The total annual number of cases is higher than 110,000. The statistics are on file with the author.
- 2.
Skoghøy (2001) pp. 486–500.
- 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.
NOU 2001: 32, pp. 127–129.
- 5.
NOU 2001: 32, pp. 132, 140–141.
- 6.
- 7.
NOU 2001: 32, p. 750.
- 8.
- 9.
Skoghøy (2014), pp. 627–629.
- 10.
Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013).
- 11.
See also Robberstad (2015), 189.
- 12.
NOU 2001:32, pp. 138–140, 708–710.
- 13.
NOU 2001: 32, pp. 133–138.
- 14.
Skoghøy (2014), pp. 630–631.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Schei et al. (2012), comment § 9-9.
- 19.
Skoghøy (2014), pp. 629–630.
- 20.
Schei et al. (2012), comment § 9-10
- 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.
- 23.
Schei et al. (2012), comment § 10-2.
- 24.
Mykland (2010).
- 25.
- 26.
Numbers are from the Norwegian Courts Administration (Domstolsadministrasjonen), and are on file with the author.
- 27.
See Nylund (2014), pp. 113–117.
- 28.
Adrian and Mykland (2014).
- 29.
- 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.
Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013). The numbers are from the period 2006–2012.
- 32.
http://aarsmelding.domstol.no/#!/oversikt/tingrett. Norway has the second lowest litigation rate in Europe, surpassed only by Finland.
- 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.
Ervasti (2009a), p. 21. The numbers are from 2008.
- 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.
CEPEJ (2014), p. 12, 195 and 202.
- 37.
- 38.
Information is based on the annual reports from the courts, available on www.oikeus.fi.
- 39.
Ervasti (2009a), p. 9.
- 40.
See also Stürner (2002), p. 504.
- 41.
See Sect. 2.2.1.
- 42.
See Sect. 2.3.1.2.
- 43.
Ervasti (2009a).
- 44.
Nylund (2014).
- 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.
See Sect. 2.6.1.
- 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
Bernt C (2011) Meklerrollen ved mekling i domstolene. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
CEPEJ (2014) European judicial systems – Edition 2014 (2012 data): efficiency and quality of justice., Council of Europe
Ervasti K (2009a) Käräjäoikeuksien riita-asiat 2008. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimustiedonantoja, vol 93. Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos, Helsinki
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
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
Ervo L (2015) Comparative analysis between East-Scandinavian countries. Scand Stud Law 61:135–152
Evaluering av tvisteloven (2013) Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet, Oslo
Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) (2011) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Mykland S (2010) Særmøter som rasjonelle myter? Tidskrift for Rettsvitenskap 123:288–326
NOU 2001: 32 Rett på sak. Lov om tvisteløsning (tvisteloven) Norges Offentlige Utredninger 2001:32
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
Robberstad A (2015) Sivilprosess, 3rd edn. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
Schei T, Bårdsen A, Nordén DB, Reusch C, Øie TM (2012) Tvisteloven: Kommentarutgave Bind I, vol 1, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Skoghøy JEA (2001) Tvistemål, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Skoghøy JEA (2014) Tvisteløsning, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)