Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reform and Development of Preparatory Proceedings in the Danish Civil Justice System: Towards (Even) More Efficient Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings

Abstract

Regulation of civil procedure in Denmark is based on a long history of national legislation. The Danish civil justice system is one of the most well functioning in Europe and the Danish courts have evidently become more effective over the years. Through several reforms in the last decade, the civil justice system has been changed and restructured in order to adopt new digital technology. Structural reforms have also made the courts more efficient without compromising the basic principles on rule of law, access to courts and justice for all parties involved in a civil proceeding. Large parts of the reforms have focused on preparatory proceedings and the use of new technology as means to access the courts easier, get cases tried faster and lower the costs for parties. This article explores the implementation of reforms to the preparatory proceedings in the Danish justice system. It seeks to determine whether the actions have fulfilled their purposes, if the system is working sufficiently and discover whether there still are possible ways of making the process in civil cases more effective and less expensive without compromising rule of law or principles of access to courts and justice.

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 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 Scandinavian Court Administrations (2007).

  2. 2.

    See e.g. Udvalget om bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene (2013) Bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene. Ministry of Justice.

  3. 3.

    Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 72.

  4. 4.

    See Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 21 for an overview and Werlauff (2010), pp. 11–12.

  5. 5.

    This can be seen in the first draft of the Danish Administration of Justice Act from 1869, which was strongly influenced by German procedural law. Waage and Herborn (2015). On the German influence, see e.g. Taksøe Jensen (1976), p. 96.

  6. 6.

    Nellemann (1869), p. 87.

  7. 7.

    Act no. 84 of 28 January 2014. Cases with a value of less than DKK 20,000 (EUR 2,684) cannot be appealed. The maximum was changed from DKK 10,000 (EUR 1,342). These changes were based on recommendations from: Udvalget om bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene: Bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene. Ministry of Justice (2013).The Appeals Permission Board may still grant permission to appeal judgments if the case concerns fundamental legal questions or if special circumstances so warrant. See Højgaard Pedersen (2009), pp. 31–35.

  8. 8.

    E.g. von Eyben (2008), p. 223.

  9. 9.

    Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), pp. 456–457.

  10. 10.

    See Sect. 4.4 below as well.

  11. 11.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 577, Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 90, Lindencrone and Werlauff (2014), p. 295, Administration of Justice Act section 338: “The court cannot grant a party more than he has claimed and can only take into consideration such allegations as the party has made, or which cannot be withdrawn”.

  12. 12.

    Jochimsen (2012), pp. 28–33.

  13. 13.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 597, The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 698/1973, p. 22, UfR 1981.101 H (Supreme Court decision) and U 1982.171 H (Supreme Court decision).

  14. 14.

    Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 484.

  15. 15.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 589.

  16. 16.

    Administration of Justice Act section 148 (2). The court may permit written statements from witnesses (Administration of Justice Act section 297).

  17. 17.

    41 in 2013. See “The 2015 EU Justice scoreboard” from the European Commission on quality, independence and efficiency of justice systems in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf (figure 2).

  18. 18.

    The whole organization is composed of the Courts (districts, high and supreme), the Appeals Permission Board, the Danish Judicial Appointments Council and the Danish Court Administration. The organization has separate appropriations in the State budget. The board of the Danish Court Administration shall ensure that the courts are run and developed in an adequate and proper way.

  19. 19.

    The Scandinavian Court Administrations (2007).

  20. 20.

    Due to a study done by Oxford Research in 2013 amongst 8,000 users of the court system (to be found on the Danish courts webpage www.domstol.dk). See also “The 2015 EU Justice scoreboard” from the European Commission on quality, independence and efficiency of justice systems in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf.

  21. 21.

    The Bailiff’s courts and probate courts are departments of the district courts.

  22. 22.

    The court of the Faroe Islands in Torshavn jurisdiction comprises all of the islands. The court hears the same cases as do district courts in other regions of Denmark. Appeal lies to the High Court of Eastern Denmark. The courts of Greenland are composed of the High Court of Greenland and 18 magistrates’ courts. Appeal against a decision made by a magistrates court lies to the High Court of Greenland. Major cases are, however, may be brought directly before the High Court of Greenland. Appeal lies to the High Court of Eastern Denmark. Pre-trial procedures in The Court of the Faroe Islands, the Court of Greenland and the High Court of Greenland will not be described or be part of the analysis in the following sections.

  23. 23.

    A number of special courts are functioning partly on the basis on legislation separate from the Justice of Administration Act: The special court for impeachment (Rigsretten), The Industrial Tribunals (Arbejdsretten) and the Housing Courts (Boligretten). Disputes arising from tenancy agreements are brought before special divisions of each of the District Courts called the Housing Courts. The only difference between the Housing Court and an ordinary court is that the Housing Court consists of three judges instead of one. Two of them are lay judges nominated by tenants and landlords associations respectively. All three judges have a vote on decisions regarding evidence and other procedural steps during pre-trial. Juul-Sandberg (2012), p. 591, Juul-Sandberg and Godsk Pedersen (2013), pp. 251–276.

  24. 24.

    Jochimsen (2012), p. 246.

  25. 25.

    The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1401/2001.

  26. 26.

    http://www.domstol.dk/om/Digitalpost/professionelle/retningslinjer/Pages/default.aspx.

  27. 27.

    By Act no. 737 of 25 June 2014 introducing section 148b to the Administration of Justice Act.

  28. 28.

    Already in 2004 section 148a of the Administration of Justice Act was adopted stating that digital information may be exchanged with the courts even if documents had to be in writing or with a signature. This section of the Act has not come in to force yet though.

  29. 29.

    See Chap. 1.

  30. 30.

    In the Administration of Justice Act section 348 it is said that the statement must: (i) state the name and address of the parties, including a postal address in the European Economic Area for the sending of procedural notices to the claimant and for service of documents; (ii) name the court in which the proceedings are instituted; (iii) state the claimant’s claim; (iv) include the detailed submissions on points of fact and law made by the claimant in support of his claim; (v) set out the documents and other evidence on which the claimant intends to rely; and (vi) include the claimant’s proposal for the hearing of the case.

  31. 31.

    Administration of Justice Act section 349. Standard forms for statements of claim and statements of defence can be downloaded from the Court Administrations Boards homepage: http://www.domstol.dk/selvbetjening/blanketter/staevningogsvarskrift/Pages/default.aspx. Lindencrone and Werlauff (2014), p. 274 goes through the formal requirements to a statement of claim and statement of defence.

  32. 32.

    The statement of defence must: (i) state the defendant’s plea; (ii) state any counterclaims; (iii) include the submissions on points of fact and law made by the defendant in support of his plea and any counterclaims; (iv) set out the documents and other evidence on which the defendant intends to rely; (v) where such address has not already been provided, provide a postal address in the European Economic Area for the sending of procedural notices to the defendant and for service of documents; and (vi) include the defendant’s proposal for the hearing of the case. Administration of Justice Act section 351.

  33. 33.

    Werlauff (2010), p. 61.

  34. 34.

    Petersen (2014), p. 297. Administration of Justice Act sections 358, 360, 362 and 363.

  35. 35.

    If the party is a legal person, for example, a limited liability company, the party can be represented “in person” by someone with the requisite authority to make decision on behalf of the company, such as a majority shareholder.

  36. 36.

    See The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1401/2001.

  37. 37.

    Administration of Justice Act section 353 and 354. Dalager (2015), p. 73.

  38. 38.

    Deloitte Consulting (2013). The processing time is estimated by identifying the first and the last registration of activity in case through the Court Administration databases. The statistics no not include a comparison with the time used on a civil case before the reform.

  39. 39.

    Backhausen and Lundblad (2009), p. 240.

  40. 40.

    Act no. 737 of June 25 2014.

  41. 41.

    Administration of Justice Act section 389a. Orders and decisions on costs fixed at a maximum amount of DKK 20,000 (EUR 2,684) are non-appealable. The Appeals Permission Board may permit an interlocutory appeal though if special circumstances so warrant.

  42. 42.

    UfR 2007.2040 H, UfR 2008.2193 H, UfR 2008.2393 H and UfR 2011.151 H (Supreme Court decisions), Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 708 and 724; Sommer Jensen (2011), Amstrup Fournais and Aschou Johannesen (2012), pp. 498–504, Juul-Sandberg and Godsk Pedersen (2011), pp. 109–128.

  43. 43.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 720, Werlauff (2010), p. 122.

  44. 44.

    Werlauff (2010), p. 122.

  45. 45.

    Werlauff (2010), p. 122.

  46. 46.

    Act no. 737 of 25 June 2014 based on The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no.1543/2013.

  47. 47.

    Disputes arising from tenancy agreements are brought before special divisions of each of the district courts called the Housing Courts. The only difference between the Housing Court and an ordinary court is that the Housing Court consists of three judges instead of one. Two of them are lay judges nominated by tenants and landlords associations respectively. All three judges have a vote on decisions regarding evidence and other procedural steps during pre-trial. Juul-Sandberg (2012), p. 591, Juul-Sandberg and Godsk Pedersen (2013), pp. 251–276.

  48. 48.

    Administration of Justice Act section 12 (3) and section 20.

  49. 49.

    According to the Administration of Justice Act section 353(5) and section 354.

  50. 50.

    Administration of Justice Act section 357.

  51. 51.

    Cf. section 358 of the Administration of Justice Act. Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 327. Gomard et al. (2013), p. 864.

  52. 52.

    The opposing party has 1 week to submit his comments to the court and the other party, after which the court will make its decision whether it will be allowed in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act section 358.

  53. 53.

    See the legislative remarks to Act no. 538 of 8 June 2006 and The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1436/2004. Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 391. Jochimsen (2012), p. 200.

  54. 54.

    Dalager (2015), p. 72 and e.g. UfR 2014.1697 Ø (Eastern High Court decision).

  55. 55.

    Administration of Justice Act section 408.

  56. 56.

    Deloitte Consulting (2013), p. 7. Petersen (2014), p. 295.

  57. 57.

    Juul-Sandberg (2013), p. 193.

  58. 58.

    www.domstol.dk.

  59. 59.

    The Council of Bars and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE): Charter of Core Principles of the European Legal Profession and Code of Conduct for European Lawyers. http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_CCBE_CoCpdf1_1382973057.pdf.

  60. 60.

    Charter of Core Principles of the European Legal Profession and Code of Conduct for European lawyers. Section 3.7.1.

  61. 61.

    Enforced by Act no. 737 of 25 June 2014. A similar rule applies under appeal.

  62. 62.

    See Sect. 4.6 below.

  63. 63.

    Administration of Justice Act section 268. Lindencrone and Werlauff (2014), p. 340.

  64. 64.

    Adrian et al. (2015), Adrian (2012), p. 87.

  65. 65.

    Backhausen and Lundblad (2009), p. 237.

  66. 66.

    Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 382.

  67. 67.

    Backhausen and Lundblad (2009), p. 238.

  68. 68.

    Adrian et al. (2015).

  69. 69.

    Out of 46,382 cases.

  70. 70.

    http://www.domstol.dk/om/publikationer/HtmlPublikationer/Handlingsplaner/Danmarks%20Domstoles%20handlingsplan%202015/kap04.htm.

  71. 71.

    See sections 1.5 and 9.2.

  72. 72.

    Act no. 168 of 12 March 2008 given on the basis of the Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no.1481/2006. Aagaard and Toftegaard Nielsen (2008), pp. 167–172. Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 636, Adrian (2012).

  73. 73.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 636; Adrian (2012), p. 47 f., The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1481/2006, p. 12 f. An example of mediation after a case was appealed can be found in UfR 2014.1334 Ø (Mediation in Eastern High Court)—on the case Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 385.

  74. 74.

    Administration of Justice Act section 275. Lawyers have to go through an education to be appointed—see Adrian (2012), p. 66. There is also a Code of Conduct for mediators made by the Danish Court Administration—can be found on www.domstol.dk.

  75. 75.

    For a further description see Adrian (2012), p. 65. Backhausen and Lundblad (2009), p. 247, Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 387.

  76. 76.

    Dalager (2015), p. 83, Rammeskov Bang Pedersen and Højlund Christensen (2015), p. 388, UfR 2014.623 V (Western High Court decision).

  77. 77.

    Deloitte Consulting (2013).

  78. 78.

    Statistics from the Danish Court Administration found on www.domstol.dk.

  79. 79.

    The court fee consists of a basic amount (DKK 500 (EUR 67)) and—when the claim concerns money or its equivalent—the claimant must pay an additional fee of DKK 250 (EUR 34) + 1.2 % of the exceeding amount not including interest or collection costs. There is an absolute cap on court fees at DKK 75,000 (EUR 10,065). See Petersen (2014), p. 285 for a an overview in English on the legislation on this topic.

  80. 80.

    See Petersen (2014), p. 296. Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 631.

  81. 81.

    Werlauff (2010), p. 106.

  82. 82.

    Gomard and Kistrup (2013), p. 774.

  83. 83.

    The Courts of Denmark are the most effective measured on time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (First instance/in days). See “The 2015 EU Justice scoreboard” from the European Commission on quality, independence and efficiency of justice systems in the European Union. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf (figure 4).

  84. 84.

    The Scandinavian Court Administrations (2007), p. 586.

  85. 85.

    An association for judges and clerks employed by the Danish courts.

  86. 86.

    http://www.domstol.dk/saadangoerdu/tildigderer/advokat/civilesagervedbyretterne/Documents/Vejledning%20om%20behandling%20af%20civile%20sager.pdf.

  87. 87.

    http://www.domstol.dk/VestreLandsret/Behandling%20af%20civile%20sager/Documents/Behandling%20af%20civile%20sager%20maj%202013.pdf.

  88. 88.

    http://www.hoejesteret.dk/hoejesteret/vejledninger/Pages/Civilesager.aspx.

  89. 89.

    The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1401/2001. In 2014 The Danish Court Administration launched a new strategy for digitization of the handling of civil cases: “Danmarks Domstole Digitaliseringsstrategi 2014-2018” https://www.domstol.dk/om/publikationer/Publikationer/Digitaliseringsstrategi%202014-2018.pdf.

  90. 90.

    http://www.domstol.dk/om/Digitalpost/professionelle/retningslinjer/Pages/default.aspx

  91. 91.

    By Act no. 737 of 25 June 2014 introducing section 148 b to the Administration of Justice Act.

  92. 92.

    Act no. 429 of 31 May 2000.

  93. 93.

    Deloitte Consulting (2013).

References

  • Aagaard H, Toftegaard Nielsen C (2008) Nye regler om retsmægling. Juristen 2008:167–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Adrian L (2012) Mellem retssag og rundbordssamtale – retsmægling i teori og praksis. Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Adrian L, Bager S, Salung Petersen C (2015) Perspektiver på forligsmægling. Juristen 2015:98–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Amstrup Fournais A, Aschou Johannesen C (2012) Et paradigmeskifte i retsplejens tilgang til sagkyndig medvirken. UfR 2012(B):498–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhausen P, Lundblad C (eds) (2009) Proceduren, 3rd edn. Djøf Forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Consulting D (2013) Analyse af civile sager, Rapport fra udvalget for bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene. Justitsministeriet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalager C (2015) Civile retssager, 2nd edn. Djøf forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomard B, Kistrup M (2013) Civilprocessen, 7th edn. KARNOV Group, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Højgaard Pedersen M (2009) Procesbevillingsnævnet efter domstolsreformen. Juristen 2009:31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochimsen J (2012) Bevisførelse i retssager, 1st edn. KARNOV Group, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul-Sandberg J (2011) Godsk Pedersen H V (eds). Adgang til fremlæggelse af ensidigt indhentede erklæringer for domstolene – med særligt henblik på boligretssager og tvister om mangler ved fast ejendom in Juridiske Emner ved Syddansk Universitet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul-Sandberg J (2012) Boligrettens saglige kompetence in Tidsskrift for Bolig- og Byggeret, 2012:591–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul-Sandberg J (2013) Hvornår skal en sag udgå af småsagsprocessen i medfør af retsplejelovens § 402, stk. 1? in Fuldmægtigen 2014:193

    Google Scholar 

  • Juul-Sandberg J, Godsk Pedersen HV (eds) (2013) Lægdommere – Boligrettens legitimitet? in Juridiske emner ved Syddansk Universitet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindencrone L, Werlauff E (2014) Dansk Retspleje, 5th edn. KARNOV Group, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Nellemann J (1869) Foreløbigt Udkast til Lov om Rettergangsmaaden i borgerlige Domssager med Motiver. Trykt som manuskript, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Nylund A (2014) European integration and Nordic civil procedure. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen CS (2014) A comparative perspective on recent Nordic reforms of civil justice. In: Ervo L, Nylund A (eds) The future of civil litigation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Pii N, Bagger T, Rasmussen K, Lindblom L, Kistrup M, Arnt Nielsen P, Jochimsen J, Møller J, Dybdahl O, Hertz K, Carlsen B, Rammeskow Bang-Pedersen U, Højlund Christensen L, Rothe H, Haargaard F, Kruse Mikkelsen J, Ellehauge M, Røn J, Dahl Sinding G, Hjortenberg J, Højgaard Mørup S, Lundblad C, Frost L, Talevski O, Andersen NM, Mavrogenis A, Backhausen P, Jensen T, Thønnings T, Juhl N, Møller Madsen R, Kernn-Jespersen L, Rørdam T, Danielsen S, Gammeltoft-Hansen H, Gomard B (eds) (2013) Retsplejeloven og Bruxelles I-forordningen med kommentarer I, 9th edn. Djøf Forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammeskov Bang Pedersen U, Højlund Christensen L (2015) Den civile retspleje, 3rd edn. Pejus, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer Jensen K (2011) Ensidige erklæringer i civilprocessen. Erhvervsjuridisk Tidsskrift 2011:317–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Taksøe Jensen F (1976) Materiel Procesledelse. Juristforbundet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • The Scandinavian Court Administrations (2007) The Danish courts - an organization in development. Scand Stud Law 51:581–590

    Google Scholar 

  • Udvalget om bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene (2013) Bedre og mere effektiv behandling af civile sager ved domstolene. Ministry of Justice

    Google Scholar 

  • von Eyben WE (1998) Dommertilkendegivelser 1987 til 1997 in U 1998 B:51–55

    Google Scholar 

  • von Eyben B (2008) Juridisk Ordbog, 13th edn. Thomson Reuters, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Waage F, Herborn M (2015) Dimensions of evidence in European civil procedure: national report Denmark. DEECP, Slovenia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werlauff E (1999) Common European procedural law. Djøf Publishing, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Werlauff E (2000) Fælleseuropæisk procesret, 2nd edn. Jurist- og Økonomforbundet, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Werlauff E (2010) Civil procedure in Denmark, 2nd edn. Djøf Forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Danish Court Administration’s Homepage: http://www.domstol.dk/. Accessed 29 Jul 2015

  • European Commission’s homepage: http://ec.europa.eu/. Accessed 29 Jul 2015

  • The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 698/1973

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no.1481/2006

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no.1543/2013

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1401/2001

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Standing Committee on Procedural Law (Retsplejerådet) report no. 1436/2004

    Google Scholar 

  • The Danish Supreme Court’s Homepage: http://www.hoejesteret.dk/. Accessed 29 Jul 2015

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Southern Denmark, DK 5230, Odense, Denmark

    Jakob Juul-Sandberg

Authors
  1. Jakob Juul-Sandberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jakob Juul-Sandberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law,Psychology and Social Work, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Juul-Sandberg, J. (2016). Reform and Development of Preparatory Proceedings in the Danish Civil Justice System: Towards (Even) More Efficient Courts. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29325-7_4

  • 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

Search

Navigation