Roman law and modern national systems of civil procedure: metamorphoses of harmonization of the civil process within the framework of European and Eurasian integration

The subject. This article is devoted to the discussion of transformation of civil justice within the framework of European and Eurasian integration in the context of globalization. Globalization has been often mistakenly treated as a sociocultural process of establishing unity of humanity. But in the author’s opinion globalization is an information – economic megatrend. We can find a precise characterization of modern globalization process in definition “glocalization” by British sociologist R.Robertson which is understood as connection between global and local processes.

The article means “glocalization” as  globalization of economic and localization of cultures. The author also tries to synthesize some trends in the development and convergence of civil procedural law in Europe and in post-Soviet space making attempts to find some unity in the diversity of transformations.

Methodological bases of research are General scientific methods (dialectics, analysis, synthesis, comparison); private and scientific methods (interpretation, formal-logical, comparative-legal, based on the actual approach).

The aims of the article are: to analyze the reasons and factors that influence the convergence of the civil process in the framework of European and Eurasian integration; to identify gaps in legal regulation, difficulties encountered in the activities of courts in the implementation of justice; to identify trends in the further development of the civil process within the framework of European and Eurasian integration.

The main scientific results. The basis of social integration and mutual understanding has its roots at least in the countries of continental Europe in common source, in the Roman-canonical models that formed the “procedural order of communication”  for many European countries before the codification period.

The civil procedure systems of modern states are facing unprecedented challenges today. In accordance with contemporary and historical comparative analysis fundamental reforms are condition for surviving of civil courts as protectors of human rights lied in the base of modern jurisdictions. Moreover, the reforms indicate common tendency of nations to communication on the base of unity in diversity of changes. The landscape of civil justice in Europe and Eurasia shows unity and diversity of processes in legal sphere.

Conclusions. The reasons and factors that influence the convergence of the civil process in the framework of European and Eurasian integration were identified. The main trend of development is to solve the unprecedented problems that the civil procedural systems of modern states face today.

Globalization, convergence, universal and national in legal culture, judicial reform, cooperation, harmonization, convergence of procedural laws, borrowing, transplants, transformation of civil justice

1. Branovitskiy K.L. Convergence of civil procedural law in the European Union and in the post-Soviet space. Doct. Diss. Yekaterinburg, 2018. 447 p. (In Russ.).

2. Maleshin D.Ya. (ed.). Eurasian civil justice: the 25-th anniversary of the Baltic and CIS countries: collection of articles. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2015. 448 p. (In Russ).

3. Lapin B.N. About the concept of the draft Model Code of Civil Procedure for the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, in: Boguslavskiy M.M., Trunk A. (eds.). CIS: Reform of civil procedural law. Moscow, Gorodets, 2002. P. 30–48. (In Russ.).

4. Maleshin D.Ya. (ed.). Judicial Statutes of the Russian Empire of 1864: influence on the modern legislation of Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Finland (on the 150th anniversary of the Judicial Reform. November 20, 1864 - November 20, 2014). Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014. 128 p. (In Russ.).

5. Zimmerman R. Savigny’s Legacy – Legal History, Comparative Law, and the Emergence of a European Legal Science. Law Quarterly Review, 1996, vol. 112, pp. 576-605.

6. Uzelac A., van Rhee C.H. The Metamorphoses of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure: The Challenges of New Paradigms – Unity and Diversity, in: Uzelac A., van Rhee C. (eds.). Transformation of Civil Justice, Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Springer, Cham, 2018, vol. 70, pp. 3-21. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_1

7. Gilles P. Civil justice systems and civil procedures in a changing world: main problems, fundamental reforms and perspectives - a European view. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Russian Law Journal, 2014. no 2 (1), pp. 41-56. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2014-2-1-41-56

8. Storme M. Role and Status of the Judiciary as a State Power, in: Carpi F., Lupoi M. (eds.) Essays on Transnational and Comparative Civil Procedure. Turin, Giappichelli, 2001. P. 29-65.

9. Sukhova N.V. Double standards of modern procedural jurisprudence and their associated changes in the field of dispute resolution. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya “Pravo” = Herold of Omsk University. Series ‘Law’, 2015, no. 2 (43), pp. 176-191. (In Russ.).

10. Ritzer G. Globalization of Nothing. London, New Delhi, Pine Forge Press, 2004. 259 p.

11. Robertson R. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2000. – DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280447

12. Ryazanovskiy V.A. Unity of the process. Moscow, Gorodets, 2005. 80 p. (In Russ.).

13. Cappelletti M. La protection d’intérêts collectifs et de groupe dans le procès civil (Métamorphoses de la procédure civile) [The protection of collective and group interests in civil litigation (Metamorphoses of Civil Procedure)]. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 1975, no 27(3), pp. 571–597. (In Ital.).

14. Zuckerman A. (ed.). Civil justice in crisis. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000. 496 p.

15. Council of Europe Principles of civil procedure. Recommendation No. R (84), 5, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 1984.

16. Storme M. (ed.) Rapprochement du Droit Judiciaire de l’Union Europeenne: Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union. Nijhoff, Dordrect-Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994, 244 p.

17. Toynbee A. J. Study of History. London; New York; Toronto, Oxford University Press, 1946. 617 p.

18. Sorokin P.A. Social & Cultural dynamics. St. Petersburg, Publishing House of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute, 2000. 316 p. (In Russ.).

19. Huntington S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1996. 368 p.

20. Komarov V.V. (ed.). Problems of the science of civil procedural law. Kharkov, Pravo Publ., 2002, 440 p. (In Russ.).

21. Watson A. Legal Transplants and European Private Law. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, 2000, vol 4.4. URL: https://www.ejcl.org/44/art44-2.html.

22. Zaytseva L.V., Sukhova N.V. Electronic evidence in civil proceedings: procedural proof issues. Vestnik grazhdanskogo processa = Herald of the Civil Procedure, 2019, no. 1 (9), pp. 190-204. (In Russ.).

23. Nylund A. The structure of civil proceedings – convergence through the main hearing model? Civil Procedure Review, 2018, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 13-39. URL: https://www.academia.edu/38112363/The_structure_of_civil_proceedings_convergence_through_the_main_hearing_model.

24. Uzelac A. In the quest for the Holy Grail of effectiveness. In: The right to trial within a reasonable time and short-term reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Ljubljana, Council of Europe, 2009. P. 41-70.

25. Van Rhee C. H., Fu Y. (eds.). Civil litigation in China and Europe : essays on the role of the judge and the parties. Dordrecht [Netherlands], Springer; Beijing [China], China-EU School of Law, 2014, 359 p.

26. Sorabji J. English civil justice after the Woolf and Jackson reforms. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014. 282 p.