European civil procedure: current status within the legal system of the European Union and its member states

УДК 347.9

The purpose of the article is to provide a critical analysis of different approaches towards the notion of “European Civil Procedure”, to substantiate by means of legal and judicial practice, research papers a true essence and legal nature of the European Civil Procedure.
The methodological basis for the study: general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison); private and academic (interpretation, comparison, formal-legal).
Problems and basic scientific results: the notion of “European Civil Procedure”, which describes the process of EU Member States judicial cooperation, bears largely a conventional character. It is not used officially by the organs and institutions of the EU, or its Member States. Moreover, it assumes an unjustified monopolization of the European discourse on the side of EU’s initiatives, although Europe is not limited to that association neither in geographical, nor in a legal sense. However, the given notion has become quite colloquial and does not cause any difficulties to the beneficiaries, and thus we may use the terms “European Civil Procedure” (ECP) and “Civil Procedure of the EU” (CP EU) as synonyms.
Different approaches towards the nature of the European Civil Procedure claim that it may be regarded as: (1) a separate (communitary) regime of Private International Law (or, otherwise, International Civil Procedure); (2) means to approximate national rules of Civil Pro-cedure; 3) a particular system of judicial decisions recognition; (4) an independent area of supranational law; 5) an aggregate of all or part of the qualities mentioned above.

The system of EU Civil Procedure constitutes “federal” procedural law of the Union that functions side-by-side national procedural rules. It governs those relations that go beyond the borders of one Member State, but not the EU itself. Relations between Member States and third nations are still generally out of the federal competence.
We need not to forget, however, that a genuine federal center does not only introduce centralized procedures, but also approves mandatory standards for all of the levels of the regulatory system (in other words, pursues approximation). A right of any federal state to exercise such competence does not find any questions due to supremacy of its authority. Still in the EU legal order the principle of its supremacy has a limited application and it is not obvious that the introduction of general norms for the Civil Procedure come within it. The existence of different standards of justice (28 national ones and one supranational) has a negative effect on the unity of the “area of justice”, making it illusory. In order to guarantee an equal level of judicial protection everywhere in the EU a procedural “bill of rights” is required, and it needs to be adopted at the “highest level” of the system.
Conclusions. The EU Civil Procedure has a dual nature. In its own (narrow) sense it is a body of federal procedural law of the EU that is applied when a cross-border situation of intracommunity character comes into being. In a broader sense, it is also a combination of norms, rules and principles of justice that are adopted by the EU as a federal center for both community-wide and national levels of the judicial system in order to guarantee the unity to the area of justice. In the ideal case, the European area of justice has to be a coherent, unified and internally consistent system. Reality is, however, far from that image, since there are multiple problems of both legal and political nature that hinder the implementa-tion of these brave ideas.

1. Freudenthal M. The Future of European Civil Procedure. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 2003, Vol. 7.5. Available at: http://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/75/art75-6.html (Date of access: 26.01.2014).

2. Kramer X.E. Cross-Border Enforcement in the EU: Mutual Trust Versus Fair Trial? Towards Principles of European Civil Procedure. International Journal of Procedural Law, 2011, Vol. 2, pp. 202–230.

3. Mańko R. Europeanisation of Civil Procedure: towards Common Minimum Standards? European Parliamen-tary Research Service, 2015. 29 p. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/ 2015/559499/EPRS_IDA%282015%29559499_EN.pdf. DOI: 10.2861/670.

4. Šinová R., Valentová L. Handbook of European Civil Procedure Law. Olomouc, 2012. 175 p.

5. Juenger F. Some Comments on European Procedural Harmonization. American Journal of Comparative Law, 1997, vol. 45(4), pp. 931–937.

6. van der Grinten P. Challenges for the Creation of a European Law of Civil Procedure. Civil Justice Review, 2007, vol. 3, pp. 65–70.

7. Storskrubb E. Civil Procedure and EU Law: a Policy Area Uncovered. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. 184 p.

8. Hess B. The Integrating Effect of European of European Civil Procedure Law. European Journal of Law Reform, 2002, vol. 4, pp. 3–17.

9. Nekrošius V. Europos Sąjungos civilinio proceso teisė (pirma dalis). Vilnius, Justitia Publ., 2009. 304 p.

10. Grebentsov A.M. The unification of rules of jurisdiction of civil cases of an international character in Europe. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2003, no. 1, pp. 34–44. (in Russ.).

11. Stewart D. Private International Law: a Dynamic and Developing Field. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 2009, vol. 30(4), pp. 1121–1131. 12. Kontrauskas R. Tarptautinis civilinis procesas: samprata ir vieta nacionalinės teisės sistemoje. Jurispru-dencija, 2008, no. 7(109), pp. 70–75.

12. Bayraktaroglu G. Harmonization of Private International Law at Different Levels: Communitarization v. International Harmonization. European Journal of Law Reform, 2003, vol. 5, pp. 111–150.

13. Bogdan M. Private International Law as Component of the Law of the Forum: General Course. Hague, Hague Academy of International Law, 2012. 352 p.

14. Collier J. Conflict of Laws. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001. 403 p.

15. Zharko A.L. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in England, Cand. Diss. Moscow, 2006. 187 p. (in Russ.).

16. Boguslavskiy M.M. Private International law. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2005. 604 p. (in Russ.).

17. Saenko A.V. Sources of the international civil procedural law. Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve = Gaps in Russian legislation, 2012, no. 3, pp. 92–95. (in Russ.).

18. Salma M. On the evolution of the concept of European law of civil procedure. Collected papers of Novi Sad Faculty of Law, 2007, no. 1–2, pp. 187–198. (in Serbian).

19. Storskrubb E. Civil Justice – a Newcomer and an Unstoppable Wave, in: de Búrca G., Craig P. (eds.). The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 309–330.

20. Kramer X.E. Harmonizing of Civil Procedure and the Interaction with Private International Law, in: Kra-mer X.E., van Rhee C.H. (eds.). Civil Litigation in a Globalising World. Hague, Asser press, Springer, 2012, pp. 121–139.

21. Boele-Woelki K. Unifying and Harmonizing Substantive Law and the Role of Conflict of Laws. Leiden, Brill, 2010. 288 p.

22. Kramer X. Towards ELI-UNIDROIT Model Rules of Civil Procedure: Basic Premises and Challenges. Bay Area Civil Procedure Forum, Hastings (San Francisco), 19 April 2016.

23. Krymskiy D.I. The simplified productions in civil process of foreign countries, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2011. 26 p. (in Russ.).

24. Kramer X. The Structure of Civil Proceedings and Why it Matters: Exploratory Observations on Future ELIUNIDROIT European Rules of Civil Procedure. Uniform Law Review, 2014, vol. 19(2), pp. 218–238.

25. Guinchard E. L'Europe, la procédure civile et le créancier: l'injonction de payer européenne et la procédure européenne de règlement des petits litiges. Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial et de droit économique, 2008, pp. 465–483.

26. Kramer X. Enhancing Enforcement in the European Union. The European Order for Payment Procedure and its Implementation in the Member States, Particularly in Germany, the Netherlands and England, in: van Rhee C.H., Uzelac A. (eds.). Enforcement and Enforceability. Tradition and Reform. Portland, Intersentia, 2010, pp. 17–40.

27. Nekrošius V. Europos Sąjungos sumariniai procesai - ar esame kelyje į bendrą Europos Sąjungos civilinį procesą?, in: Teisė besikeičiančioje Europoje. Liber Amicorum Pranas Kūris. Vilnius, Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2008, pp. 787–798.

28. Kramer X. Procedure Matters: Construction and Deconstruction in European Civil Procedure. Rotterdam, 2013. 30 p.

29. Tulibacka M. Europeanization of Civil Procedures: in Search of a Coherent Approach. Common Market Law Review, 2009, vol. 4, pp. 1527–1565.

30. Reding V. Strengthening Mutual Trust: Towards a True European Area of Civil Justice, Public Lecture. Luxembourg, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg (MPIL), 25 March 2014.

31. Cadiet L., Jeuland E., Amrani-Mekki S. (eds.). Droit processuel civil de l’Union Européenne. Paris, Lexis Nexis, 2011. 350 p.

32. Basedow J. The Communitarisation of Private International Law – Introduction. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht, 2009, vol. 73, pp. 455–460.

33. Storme M. A Single Civil Procedure for Europe: A Cathedral Builders’ Dream. Ritsumeikan Law Review, 2005, no. 22, pp. 87–100.

34. Kapustin A.Ya. International Law Foundations of the Institutional System of Eurasian Integration. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2013, no. 10, pp. 116–121. (in Russ.).

35. Nicolae-Horia T. How Far Have We Reached in European Cooperation in Civil Matters? A View on European Enforcement. CES Working Papers, 2015, vol. VII, iss. 2A, pp. 637–647.

36. Vernadaki Z. EU Civil Procedure and Access to Justice after the Lisbon Treaty: Perspectives for a Coherent Approach, PhD Thesis. London, University College London, 2013. 296 p.

37. Loredo M. ¿Hacia un Derecho procesal europeo? InDret, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 1–24.

38. Chevychalova Zh. Unification of conflict norms in European Union law. Teorіja і praktika pravoznavstva = Theory and practice of jurisprudence, 2013, vol. 2, no. 4. (in Ukranian).

39. Entin L.M. (ed.). European law. European Union law and the legal protection of human rights. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2007. 960 p. (in Russ.).

40. Mikhaleva T.N. On target installations in the context of development of integration law (for example, the European Union and the Eurasian community), in: Actual problems of international public and international private law, scientific collection. Minsk, BSU Publ., 2013, vol. 5, pp. 231–238. (in Russ.).

41. Nersesyants V.S. General theory of law and state. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2001. 520 p. (in Russ.).

42. Lazarev V.V. (ed.). General theory of law and state. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2002. 520 p. (in Russ.).

43. Dossenrode S. Approaching the European Federation? London, Routledge, 2007. 232 p.

44. Scutaru M.S. Globalization and Interregionalism. Research and Science Today, 2014, vol. 7(1), pp. 81–88.

45. Postnikova E.V., Heymann J. Federalism in International Private Law of European Union. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2015, no. 4, pp. 147–164. (in Russ.).

46. Schmitter P. Examining the Present Euro-Polity with the Help of Past Theories, in: Marks G., Scharpf F.W. et al. (eds.). Governance in the European Union. London, SAGE Publ., 1996, pp. 1–15.

47. Brand R. The European Union’s New Role in International Private Litigation. Loyola University Chicago In-ternational Law Review, 2005, vol. 2(2), pp. 277–293.

48. Moravcsik A. Federalism in the European Union: Rhetoric and Reality, in: Nicolaidis K., Howse R. (eds.). The Federal Vision: Legitimacy and Levels of Governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 163–164.

49. Tömmel I. The European Union – a Federation sui generis?, in: Laursen F. (ed.). The EU and Federalism: Polities and Policies Compared. Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 41–56.

50. Bideleux R. Introduction: European Integration and Disintegration, in: Bideleux R., Taylor R. (eds.). European Integration and Disintegration: East and West. London, Routledge, 2002, p. 1–9.

51. Pobedinskii I. Federalism's role in European integration theory. Izvestiya Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A.I. Gertsena = Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Science, 2008, no. 67, pp. 210–215. (in Russ.).

52. Boiko Yu.P. The conceptual basis of federalism in the legal science. Yuridicheskaya nauka = Juridical Science, 2011, no. 3, pp. 8–11. (in Russ.).

53. Prokhorov V.A. About some aspects of consideration of federal states and allied formations of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Al'manakh sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniya = Almanac of Modern Science and Education, 2010, no. 3(34), pt. II, pp. 52–54. (in Russ.).

54. Burgess M. Federalism and the European Union: the Building of Europe (1950-2000). London, Routledge, 2002. 290 р.

55. Wolinetz S. Comparing the Incomparable: Treating the EU in Comparative Context, in: Laursen F. (ed.). The EU and Federalism: Polities and Policies Compared. Farnham, Ashgate, 2011, pp. 27–39.

56. Kelmen R. Build to Last? The Durability of EU Federalism, in: Meunier S., McNamara K. (eds.). Making History: State of the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 51–66.

57. Behr V. A unified and harmonised European law and its impact on third countries. Baltiiskii region, 2011, no. 3, pp. 13–24. (in Russ.).

58. Baca W.M.K. The Principle of Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in EU Law in the Light of the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ Clause of the US Constitution. Available at: http://www.comunidadandina.org/BDA/docs/CAN-INT-0061.pdf (date of access: 21.12.2015).

59. Get'man-Pavlova I.V. Private International law. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2005. 752 p. (in Russ.).

60. Gorywoda L., Hatzimihail N., Nuyts A. Introduction: Market Regulation, Judicial Cooperation and Collective Redress, in: Nuyts A., Hatzimihail N. (eds.). Cross-Border Class Actions: The European Way. Munich, Sellier European Law Publishers, 2013, pp. 1–58.

61. Mikhailova S.A. Legal regulation of judicial cooperation in civil, commercial and family matters in the European Union, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2012. 25 p. (in Russ.).

62. Follesdal A., Hix S. Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 2006, vol. 44(3), pp. 533–562.

63. Jano D. Understanding the “EU Democratic Deficit”. A Two Dimension Concept on a Three Level-of-analysis. Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 2008, vol. 14(1), pp. 57–70.