European co-operation has resulted in many new and challenging opportunities for legal scholars who, since the so-called 'codification period', have become used to operating in a purely national context. This applies also to scholars in the field of civil procedure, who, for a considerable period of time, have resisted leaving the purely national domain. These scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the question whether or not harmonisation of civil procedural law is a feasible option, and, if so, in what manner harmonisation should be achieved. The contributors to this book seek to further the harmonisation debate by exploring some of the main trends in the development of civil procedural law during the last two centuries in several European countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, England and Wales, The Netherlands and Belgium). Two of the central issues that are addressed by the contributors are the extent to which the various procedural models have influenced each other and the extent to which common traditions in civil procedural law may be distinguished in Europe. Each general chapter in this book is supplemented by three chapters devoted to specific procedural topics: Conciliation, Party Interrogation as Evidence and the Role of the Judge. In addition, extensive bibliographical references are included.

This comprehensive Commentary provides article-by-article exploration of EU Regulation 655/2014, analysing and outlining in a straightforward manner the steps that lawyers, businesses and banks can take when involved in debt recovery. It offers a detailed discussion of national practice and legislation in order to provide context and a deeper understanding of the complex difficulties surrounding the procedural system created by the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation.

This important book, the fifth in the Civil Procedure in Europe series, provides a comparative overview, of 13 EU countries and Switzerland, on the law of evidence. Each country's practice in this area is described and analysed by a national expert distinguished in the field of civil procedural law. The contributions are written in either English, French or German, and are followed by summaries in both remaining languages. Bibliographies are included to enable the reader to locate material for further study. A comparative contribution by the editor, Professor Jose Lebre de Freitas, analyses the similarities and differences between the various European systems. Furthermore, the editor discusses attempts to harmonise the law of evidence in Europe and provides concrete suggestions for a future harmonisation or unification of this area of law. The countries covered are Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

This book highlights the importance of optional choice of court agreements, and the need for future research and legal development in this area. The law relating to choice of court agreements has developed significantly in recent years, reflecting their increased use in practice. However, most recent legal developments concern exclusive choice of court agreements. In comparison, optional choice of court agreements, also called permissive forum selection clauses and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, have attracted little attention from lawmakers or commentators. This collection is comprised of 19 National Reports, providing a critical analysis of the legal treatment of optional choice of court agreements, including asymmetric choice of court agreements, under national laws as well as under multilateral instruments. It also includes a General Report offering an overview of this area of the law and a synthesis of the findings of the national reporters. The contributions to this collection show that the legal treatment of optional choice of courts differs between legal systems. In some countries, the law on the effect of optional choice of court agreements is at an early stage in its development, whereas in others the law is relatively advanced. Irrespective of this, the national reporters identify unresolved issues with the effect of optional choice of court agreements, where the law is unclear or the cases are conflicting, demonstrating that this topic warrants greater attention. This book is of interest to judges, legislators, lawyers, academics and students who are concerned with private international law and international civil procedure.

This book proposes a principled approach to the regulation of dispute resolution. It covers dispute resolution mechanisms in all their varieties, including negotiation, mediation, conciliation, expert opinion, mini-trial, ombud procedures, arbitration and court adjudication. The authors present a transnational Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution (GRDR). The regulatory principles contained in this Guide are based on a functional taxonomy of dispute resolution mechanisms, an open normative framework and a modular structure of regulatory topics. The Guide for Regulating Dispute Resolution is formulated and commented upon in a concise manner to assist legislators, policy-makers, professional associations, practitioners and academics in thinking about which solutions best suit local and regional circumstances. The aim of this book is to contribute to the understanding and development of the legal framework governing national and international dispute resolution. Theory, empirical research and regulatory models have been taken from the wealth of experience in 12 jurisdictions: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United States of America. Experts with a background in academia, practice and law-making describe and analyse the regulatory framework and social reality of dispute resolution in these countries. On this basis the authors draw conclusions about policy choices, regulatory strategies and the practice of conflict resolution. This title is included in Bloomsbury Professional's International Arbitration online service.

This study discusses the many different aspects of judicial independence in Israel. It begins with an historical analysis of the concept of judicial independence in a comparative perspective, emphasizing the conceptual roots of the judiciary in Jewish law. Recent decades have witnessed a marked increase in the role played by the judiciary in society. This general trend is apparent in Israel, where the highly significant social role played by the judiciary has been on the increase for some years. The constitutional role of the judiciary in society is more pronounced in countries where the courts are empowered to review the constitutionality of legislative acts. In Israel the power of judicial review, in decisions of the Supreme Court, has been applied in a number of cases in which legislation of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, has been set aside. The increasingly prominent role of the judiciary in Israel is further manifested by the frequent recourse to judicial commissions of inquiry, chaired by judges who are often called upon to examine some of the major public controversies.