Civil Justice in the EU – Growing and Teething?

This post has been jointly drafted by Gilles Cuniberti, Xandra Kramer, Thalia Kruger and Marta Requejo.

Civil Justice in the EU – Growing and Teething? Questions regarding implementation, practice and the outlook for future policy is the title of the conference held in Uppsala, Sweden, on Thursday and Friday last week, co-organised by the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies in collaboration with the Faculty of Law at Uppsala University and the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law (see Prof. Cuniberti’s announcement with the program here). This has been the first conference organized by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg outside of the Grand Duchy.

After the formal opening of the conference by Antonina Bakardjieva Engelberkt, Stockholm University, Chairman of the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies, Prof. Burkhard Hess, Executive Director of the MPI Luxembourg, delivered the keynote address, centered on the current situation of a European procedural law which transgresses the mere coordination of the national procedural systems. In the European framework the national systems do not appear any longer to be self-contained and self-standing: in many respects, European law ingresses and transforms the adjudicative systems of the EU-Member States. Today, European lawmaking often triggers far-reaching reforms of the national systems (Consumer ADR being one example). In addition, the ECJ transforms the adjudicative systems of the Member States as more and more areas of private and procedural law are communitarised and are subjected to its (interpretative) competence. On the other hand, the national procedures in the European Judicial Area are still divergent with regard to their efficiency. In this respect, the case-law of the ECHR on the right of a party to get a judgment in reasonable period of time has not helped to assimilate the level of judicial protection in the Member States. Yet, the different efficiencies of the national systems entail a growing competition among the “judicial marketplaces” in Europe which is reinforced by the European procedural instruments on the coordination of these systems.

Against this background, Prof. Hess stressed the importance of the Commissioner for Justice. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commissioner for Justice implements a genuine lawmaking policy, not only with regard to cross-border litigation under Article 81 TFEU, but also with regard to the supervision of the national judicial systems. A new tool is the so-called judicial scoreboard aimed at the evaluation of the adjudicative systems of the EU-Member States. Although this scoreboard does not provide for substantial new information (the data are largely borrowed from the Council of Europe), the political ambition goes further: The Commission understands its mission in a comprehensive way covering all areas of dispute resolution, including the efficiency and the independence of the national court systems.

Prof. Hess went on to say the if the development of the European procedural law is regarded, not from the number of the instruments enacted so far, but from a systematic point of view, the balance would appear less successful. Until now, the law-making of the Union has been mainly sectorial and the choices of legislative activities have not been comprehensive, but rather incidental. At present, there is no master-plan, no roadmap; a comprehensive and systematic approach is lacking. This situation has been criticized by the legal literature and alternatives have been discussed and proposed. All in all, a more systematic approach with a better coordination of the EU-instruments at the horizontal and the vertical level is needed. And it is the task of procedural science to discuss the different regulatory options with regard of their feasibility and efficiency in order to improve and to systemize European law-making in this field. Thus, the Director of the MPI Luxembourg announced that regulatory approaches of the European law of civil procedural  are going to become a major research area of the Institute.

The first panel, which was chaired by Marie Linton (University of Uppsala), carried the title Avoiding Torpedoes and Forum Shopping. The four speakers focused on two topics. First, Trevor Hartley (London School of Economics) and Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) explored whether the remedy established by the Recast of the Regulation to reinforce choice of court agreements would indeed eliminate torpedoes, whether Italian or not. While agreeing that the new remedy would probably be satisfactory in simple cases, the speakers debated whether problems might still arise in case of conflicting or complex clauses. Then, Erik Tiberg (Government offices of Sweden) and Michael Hellner (University of Stockholm) discussed the consequences of the new rules of jurisdiction with respect to third states.

The second panel, addressing alternative dispute resolution, was composed of three speakers. In his speech Jim Davies, University of Northampton, provided a broad historical background of the recently adopted Directive on ADR for consumers (Directive 3013/11/EU), starting from the 1998 and 2001 European Commission’s Recommendations and moving on to the Commission’s Proposal and the Directive’s final text. Thereafter, Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Stockholm University, tackled the new rules on ADR with a view to assessing how these new provisions provide a further step toward network governance in EU consumer protection policy, especially highlighting the role of consumer organizations. Finally, Cristina M. Mariottini, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, addressed two ADR systems concerning disputes over top level domains, and namely ICANN’s New gTLD program and dispute resolution system and EURid’s ADR system for disputes concerning the “.eu” domain, with a view to assessing whether and to what extent the protection of consumers has been kept into consideration within these systems.

The third panel, entitled Simplified procedures and debt collection – much ado about nothing?, brought together four speakers. Mikael Berglund (Swedish Enforcement Authority) noticed that the European enforcement order and the European order for payment procedure are not frequently used in Sweden; on the European small claims procedure there are no reported cases at all. He explained that creditors do not find it worth the time and money because there is no reliable information on the debtor’s assets in other Member States; also, that they have problems finding the competent enforcement authority. He presented several practical ideas to cure the enforcement ‘Achilles’ heel’ of EU law. Carla Crifó, of the University of Leicester, provided information and several – limitedly available – data on the implementation and enforcement of the European order for payment procedure and the small claims procedure in England and Wales. This shows that little use is made of these European procedures. In this context, Ms Crifò stressed the problem of the use of English in European instruments which does not necessarily correspond to the legal terminology used in the United Kingdom. English courts and practitioners are usually not well-acquainted with these procedures. Against the background of the current “euroscepticism” in England, this situation is not likely to improve. Xandra Kramer, of the Erasmus University (Rotterdam), addressed the potential of the uniform European procedures in view of their scope and limitation to cross-border cases. She presented data on the use and appreciation of these procedures in the Netherlands acquired in empirical research and gave recommendations for improvement. Though particularly the use of the European small claims procedures is disappointing up to date, she stressed that one should not be too pessimistic since the European procedures are very new compared to national procedure and the building of a well-functioning European procedural order will take time and efforts.  Cristian Oro Martinez, from the MPI Luxembourg, reviewed some of the aspects of the Regulation on the European Small Claims Procedure which, besides the general lack of awareness of the instrument, may account for its relatively small success. These issues include, among others, problems such as the territorial scope of application of the Regulation (narrow definition of cross-border cases), the limitation of the right to an oral hearing with regard to non-consumer cases, or the problems arising out of the interface between the Regulation and other EU instruments (especially the Brussels I Regulation), as well as domestic procedural law

Two other panels took place simultaneously after the coffee break, on Family Law and Collective Redress respectively. The first one was composed of three speakers. Katharina Boele-Woelki, of Utrecht University, discussed the issue of partial harmonisation, referring to the example of the Rome III Regulation. As today, only 16 of 28 Member States are participating in the Rome III framework. She indicated the different political reasons underlying Member States’ choices whether to participate in the Regulation or not. She also showed that fragmented harmonisation is not only the result of enhanced cooperation, but also, in other instruments, of the particular status that some EU Member States (Denmark, Ireland and the UK) have with respect to civil justice. Thus, the application of enhanced cooperation in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is a matter of concern. Thereafter Thalia Kruger, of the University of Antwerp, discussed the element of choice in the Rome III Regulation, showing that a rule that looks clear at first sight has many underlying uncertainties. The debate raised the issue of how habitual residence can be ascertained as a preliminary matter for purposes of jurisdiction, without requiring too cumbersome an investigation by the judge (with a waste of time as a result).

The third speaker, Björn Laukemann of the Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg, addressed the issue of the new Succession Regulation and the European Certificate of Succession. The debate on the subject pointed out the problem of EU certificates that remain valid for only six months, while some national certificates, which will co-exist with the EU certificates, are eternally valid. Another question related to this co-existence is the issue of contradictory certificates (EU and national).

The second track of the fourth section addressed some issues relating to collective redress, especially in the light of the Commission’s Recommendation of 11 June 2013. Eva Storskrubb, from Roschier, assessed the potential impact of the Recommendation highlighting that, although it is non-binding, its rather prescriptive formulation and the Commission’s commitment to review its implementation by Member States may entail significant changes in the domestic regulation of collective actions. Rebecca Money-Kyrle, from the University of Oxford, addressed some possible consequences of the Recommendations’ approach to legal standing. She pointed out that the basic principles set out in the text may force to do away with existing domestic procedures which are efficient. Moreover, they fail to establish satisfactory rules as regards commonality criteria or cross-border cases. Laura Ervo, from Örebro University, provided several arguments to support an opt-out approach to collective redress, hence critically assessing the Commission’s Recommendation in this respect. She drew from models provided by Scandinavian legislation, especially the Danish authority-driven system, to support the idea that only opt-out can guarantee access to justice for all damaged parties. Finally, Stefaan Voet, from Ghent University, dealt with different systems of funding of collective actions. He evaluated their compatibility with the principles laid down in the Recommendation on lawyers’ remuneration and third-party funding, critically assessing the latter for being sometimes too strict.

Under the heading The Quest for Mutual Recognition, with Dean Torbjörn Andersson as chairman, the first panel of Friday morning discussed several issues related to mutual trust and mutual recognition. Marie Linton, from the Uppsala University, addressed the balance between efficiency and procedural human rights in civil justice, particularly in the field covered by the Brussels I Regulation and under the future Brussels I bis Regulation. Marta Requejo Isidro, MPI Luxembourg, presented the ECtHR decision of 18 June 2013, Povse, pointing out  questions that  remain open after it. As for the most important, i.e., its possible influence on the abolition of exequatur in civil and commercial matters,  Prof. Requejo adopted a somewhat skeptical position on a wide reach of the ECtHR decision, both in the light of the features characterising the Brussels I bis Regulation (although it may still be disputable  to what extent there is room for discretion at the requested State), and the reasoning of the Court itself. Finally, Eva Storskrubb, Senior Associate, Roschier (Stockholm), dealt with the evolution of mutual recognition as part of a regulatory strategy comparing its Internal Market historical context with the current civil justice context.

The conference ended with a presentation of Future Measures and Challenges by Mr. Jacek Garstka, Legislative Officer, DG Justice, European Commission, and Signe Öhman, Legal Counsellor, Permanent Representation of Sweden, Brussels. Announcements were made regarding the immediate release of several Commission’s Reports – among others, on the Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure; on Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), and on the Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. Mr. Garstka also referred to future areas of concern for the Commission, such as justice as a means to enhance economic growth, the legal framework of insurance contracts, and the area of insurance law. Ms. Öhman recalled the forthcoming end of the Stockholm program, and ventured an opinion on the follow up. She also pointed out some topics on the Council agenda -data protection, the rights of citizens, judicial networking… This panel was chaired by Prof. Antonina Bakardjieva-Engelbrekt, Stockholm University, who pronounced the closing remarks.

Comments on this entry are closed.