Unharmonised Procedural Rules

Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The basic premise of this chapter is that the EU has already partially harmonised national procedural rules by means of its private international law (hereafter PIL) Regulations. This premise is derived from the proposition that ‘ private international law ’ (which name should usually be understood to be interchangeable with ‘ conflict of laws ’ in this chapter), if considered in broad functional terms, is part of a legal system’s procedural law: 1 it follows that when the EU harmonises aspects of PIL it also thereby harmonises aspects of domestic civil procedure law. This assumed premise leads to a central question concerning whether there is a compelling political or legal case for the EU to engage in further harmonisation of Member State civil procedure concerning the Regulations examined by this study, or even of the subject of EU PIL in general. If either part of the preceding question is answered in the affirmative the next question concerns the possibilities of further harmonisation and necessitates an examination of the related questions of what should be harmonised and how this harmonisation should be effected within the EU’s legislative competence. This chapter addresses these issues in four substantive parts and concludes that logic and evidence both indicate a compelling need for further reform. The novel aspect of this chapter is that its suggested reforms (reform of the procedure by which preliminary references can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and, the creation of an intra-EU forum for the curation and improvement of EU PIL) diverge from the reform suggestions usually encountered and focus on relatively simple and inexpensive methods by which the targeted or general curation of the Regulations that constitute EU PIL and its procedures may be achieved.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCross-Border Litigation in Europe
EditorsPaul Beaumont, Mihail Danov, Katarina Trimmings, Burcu Yuksel
PublisherHart Publishing
Pages55-78
Number of pages24
ISBN (Electronic)9781782256786
ISBN (Print)9781782256762
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Publication series

NameStudies in Private International Law
PublisherBloomsbury

Fingerprint

harmonization
EU
private law
reform
regulation
international law
procedural law
court of justice
Law
legal system
examination
evidence

Cite this

Fitchen, J. M. C. (2017). Unharmonised Procedural Rules: Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ? In P. Beaumont, M. Danov, K. Trimmings, & B. Yuksel (Eds.), Cross-Border Litigation in Europe (pp. 55-78). (Studies in Private International Law). Hart Publishing.

Unharmonised Procedural Rules : Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ? / Fitchen, Jonathan Michael Christopher.

Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. ed. / Paul Beaumont; Mihail Danov; Katarina Trimmings; Burcu Yuksel. Hart Publishing, 2017. p. 55-78 (Studies in Private International Law).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Fitchen, JMC 2017, Unharmonised Procedural Rules: Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ? in P Beaumont, M Danov, K Trimmings & B Yuksel (eds), Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. Studies in Private International Law, Hart Publishing, pp. 55-78.
Fitchen JMC. Unharmonised Procedural Rules: Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ? In Beaumont P, Danov M, Trimmings K, Yuksel B, editors, Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. Hart Publishing. 2017. p. 55-78. (Studies in Private International Law).
Fitchen, Jonathan Michael Christopher. / Unharmonised Procedural Rules : Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ?. Cross-Border Litigation in Europe. editor / Paul Beaumont ; Mihail Danov ; Katarina Trimmings ; Burcu Yuksel. Hart Publishing, 2017. pp. 55-78 (Studies in Private International Law).
@inbook{3ca071589c13420980610342a3bcbdfc,
title = "Unharmonised Procedural Rules: Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ?",
abstract = "The basic premise of this chapter is that the EU has already partially harmonised national procedural rules by means of its private international law (hereafter PIL) Regulations. This premise is derived from the proposition that ‘ private international law ’ (which name should usually be understood to be interchangeable with ‘ conflict of laws ’ in this chapter), if considered in broad functional terms, is part of a legal system’s procedural law: 1 it follows that when the EU harmonises aspects of PIL it also thereby harmonises aspects of domestic civil procedure law. This assumed premise leads to a central question concerning whether there is a compelling political or legal case for the EU to engage in further harmonisation of Member State civil procedure concerning the Regulations examined by this study, or even of the subject of EU PIL in general. If either part of the preceding question is answered in the affirmative the next question concerns the possibilities of further harmonisation and necessitates an examination of the related questions of what should be harmonised and how this harmonisation should be effected within the EU’s legislative competence. This chapter addresses these issues in four substantive parts and concludes that logic and evidence both indicate a compelling need for further reform. The novel aspect of this chapter is that its suggested reforms (reform of the procedure by which preliminary references can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and, the creation of an intra-EU forum for the curation and improvement of EU PIL) diverge from the reform suggestions usually encountered and focus on relatively simple and inexpensive methods by which the targeted or general curation of the Regulations that constitute EU PIL and its procedures may be achieved.",
author = "Fitchen, {Jonathan Michael Christopher}",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781782256762",
series = "Studies in Private International Law",
publisher = "Hart Publishing",
pages = "55--78",
editor = "Paul Beaumont and Mihail Danov and Katarina Trimmings and Burcu Yuksel",
booktitle = "Cross-Border Litigation in Europe",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Unharmonised Procedural Rules

T2 - Is there a Case for Further Harmonisation at EU Level ?

AU - Fitchen, Jonathan Michael Christopher

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The basic premise of this chapter is that the EU has already partially harmonised national procedural rules by means of its private international law (hereafter PIL) Regulations. This premise is derived from the proposition that ‘ private international law ’ (which name should usually be understood to be interchangeable with ‘ conflict of laws ’ in this chapter), if considered in broad functional terms, is part of a legal system’s procedural law: 1 it follows that when the EU harmonises aspects of PIL it also thereby harmonises aspects of domestic civil procedure law. This assumed premise leads to a central question concerning whether there is a compelling political or legal case for the EU to engage in further harmonisation of Member State civil procedure concerning the Regulations examined by this study, or even of the subject of EU PIL in general. If either part of the preceding question is answered in the affirmative the next question concerns the possibilities of further harmonisation and necessitates an examination of the related questions of what should be harmonised and how this harmonisation should be effected within the EU’s legislative competence. This chapter addresses these issues in four substantive parts and concludes that logic and evidence both indicate a compelling need for further reform. The novel aspect of this chapter is that its suggested reforms (reform of the procedure by which preliminary references can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and, the creation of an intra-EU forum for the curation and improvement of EU PIL) diverge from the reform suggestions usually encountered and focus on relatively simple and inexpensive methods by which the targeted or general curation of the Regulations that constitute EU PIL and its procedures may be achieved.

AB - The basic premise of this chapter is that the EU has already partially harmonised national procedural rules by means of its private international law (hereafter PIL) Regulations. This premise is derived from the proposition that ‘ private international law ’ (which name should usually be understood to be interchangeable with ‘ conflict of laws ’ in this chapter), if considered in broad functional terms, is part of a legal system’s procedural law: 1 it follows that when the EU harmonises aspects of PIL it also thereby harmonises aspects of domestic civil procedure law. This assumed premise leads to a central question concerning whether there is a compelling political or legal case for the EU to engage in further harmonisation of Member State civil procedure concerning the Regulations examined by this study, or even of the subject of EU PIL in general. If either part of the preceding question is answered in the affirmative the next question concerns the possibilities of further harmonisation and necessitates an examination of the related questions of what should be harmonised and how this harmonisation should be effected within the EU’s legislative competence. This chapter addresses these issues in four substantive parts and concludes that logic and evidence both indicate a compelling need for further reform. The novel aspect of this chapter is that its suggested reforms (reform of the procedure by which preliminary references can be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and, the creation of an intra-EU forum for the curation and improvement of EU PIL) diverge from the reform suggestions usually encountered and focus on relatively simple and inexpensive methods by which the targeted or general curation of the Regulations that constitute EU PIL and its procedures may be achieved.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781782256762

T3 - Studies in Private International Law

SP - 55

EP - 78

BT - Cross-Border Litigation in Europe

A2 - Beaumont, Paul

A2 - Danov, Mihail

A2 - Trimmings, Katarina

A2 - Yuksel, Burcu

PB - Hart Publishing

ER -