1        Objective and Methodology

1. The idea of this part of the compendium on Civil Procedure and Justice is to identify new developments concerning the pivotal elements of the structure of civil litigation, to analyse whether there exist overarching models that are adopted by different national systems, and to find out where elements of local legal culture are determinant factors. The focus of the analysis therefore lies on the central characteristics of the structure of civil proceedings and not on the description of details.
2. Certainly, one procedural system might adopt different models for different elements of the proceedings. This means that there is probably not one model A and one model B for the entire structure of civil litigation; it is rather to be expected that there are different models for different elements of the structure.
3. This comparative analysis will consider written rules, case law, the behaviour of the parties, their representatives, judges and other persons, such as third parties, in the context of civil proceedings, statistics, and the attitude to litigation within society as well as the reputation of judges and solicitors. Practice might differ from law in the books (see part 1 of this compendium on ‘Comparative Studies’).^[1]
4. The analysis is based on an open-minded starting point: the traditional common law – civil law divide approach does not serve as a basis; legal families are not considered to be the starting point either.^[2]

2        Analysis of Uncomplex Lawsuits in Ordinary Matters

5. The analysis will be limited to uncomplex lawsuits in ordinary matters. This scope of the analysis is defined by the negative: Our analysis will not include collective litigation (for collective litigation, see part 10 of this compendium), it will not cover special subject matters, eg, family matters^[3] (for special subject matters, see part 12 of this compendium), and it will not deal with special forms of procedure which are not related to special subject matters, such as payment order procedures or small claims procedures (for such special forms of procedures, see part 11 of this compendium).
6. As in each national system there is one set of procedural rules designed for private law cases which at least comprise ordinary cases, a common basis for the comparative analysis of the structure of civil litigation is guaranteed.
7. In this context, it might nevertheless be interesting to discuss the differences between a transsubstantive approach in comparison to an approach which is based on a system with different types of procedure for different subject matters (family matters, labour law cases, intellectual property law cases, administrative law cases, etc) and to analyse whether these differences have an impact on the structure of civil litigation in uncomplex lawsuits in ordinary matters.

3        The Influence of Purposes of Civil Procedure on the Structure of Civil                 Proceedings

8. The purposes of civil procedure might influence the structure of civil proceedings. There can indeed be identified different approaches to the question what the purposes of civil procedure are.
9. One approach concentrates on a particular dispute and puts an emphasis on the idea of enforcing individual rights within just, speedy (and inexpensive?) proceedings. This means that civil proceedings are understood as an ancillary element to substantive rights. Still concentrating on a particular dispute, the focus could also be put on the idea of resolving the dispute. In accordance with such an understanding, court driven techniques of amicable dispute resolution might gain importance.
10. Another (additional) approach puts an emphasis on the public interest of the whole society and considers private law enforcement and deterrence understood in a broad sense as purposes of civil proceedings. In some regions of the world, eg, in Europe, we might observe a certain change of the traditional attitude, which might also lead to new elements within the structure of civil litigation. In this sense, jurisdiction aimed at assessing and establishing the constitutionality of norms or legal interpretation based on concentrated actions or incidents, through binding precedents or erga omnes effects, can also be cited as an example (for instruments of collective litigation, see part 10 of this compendium).
11. In addition, the structure of civil litigation might be highly influenced by the existence of a proportionality concept. The legitimacy and the need of such a concept are even discussed in legal systems where such a concept is traditionally unknown. Procedural elements that create high costs, such as disclosure and discovery, might urge the legislators or courts to consider aspects of proportionality and the idea of abuse of process (for these questions in the context of disclosure and discovery, see part 7 of this compendium on ‘Access to Information. Evidence’). It is, however, not a simple task to introduce the idea of proportionality without creating the risk of a denial of justice (for this fundamental question, see part 3 of this compendium, which deals with the key idea of access to justice).
12. Finally, the purposes of civil procedure are closely connected with the fundamental principles and rights of civil procedure, eg, the right to be heard. In this segment, the analysis will focus on such procedural rights and principles which influence the structure of civil litigation. For a general in-depth analysis of procedural rights and principles, it is referred to part 5 of this compendium.

4        Structure and Terminology

13. The foregoing leads to the following structure of this part 7 of the compendium: The fundamental rights and principles which might have an influence on the structure of civil proceedings will form the topic of the first chapter. In a second chapter, an analysis of the chronological order and the nature of the different elements of civil proceedings will follow. The third chapter will deal with the role of the judge, in particular with regard to early dispute resolution, case management, and settlement. The responsibilities of the parties and their representatives for are the subject of the fourth chapter. In a final fifth chapter, the conclusions of the different chapters will be put together to identify certain models of structure of civil proceedings.
14. Such a comparative analysis is confronted with linguistic challenges. In different regions of the world, English words may have different meanings. Sometimes, a transnational ‘English’ terminology has emerged, which does not correspond to the traditional terminology in English speaking countries. One example is the word ‘trial’, which is used with different meanings (sometimes, in a transnational context, it is used as a synonym for ‘hearing’). Another example are expressions like ‘principle of orality’ or ‘principle of immediacy’, which do, for example, not exist in the traditional English terminology of the US.^[4] The non-existence of certain terms does, however, not necessarily mean that the idea behind the words does not exist. The analysis will therefore try to use a neutral terminology and describe the content of the fundamental principles without sticking to national or regional buzzwords. Certainly, this is sometimes difficult because English terminology has evolved against the background of the procedural systems in the Common law countries, but on a transnational level, we can also observe the emergence of a new form of transnational English terminology of civil procedure (for more details about these questions, see part 1 of this compendium ‘Comparative Studies’).

Abbreviations and Acronyms        

Abbreviations which are not contained in this list are based on the Cardiff index of legal abbreviations. 

ACHPR	African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
ADR	Alternative dispute resolution
ALI	American Law Institute
Art	Article/Articles
BGH	Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) [Germany]
BID	Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (Inter-American Development Bank)
CEPEJ	Conseil de l'Europe Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice (Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice)
cf	confer (compare)
ch	chapter
CIDH	Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Interamerican Court of Human Rights)
CJEU	Court of Justice of the European Union
CPA	Civil Procedure Act
EBRD	European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
edn	edition/editions
ed	editor/editors
etc	et cetera
ECtHR	European Court of Human Rights
ECLI	European Case Law Identifier
eg	exempli gratia (for example)
ELI	European Law Institute
EU	European Union
EUR	Euro
ff	following
fn	footnote (external, ie, in other chapters or in citations)
FRCP	Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
GVG	Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz
ibid	ibidem (in the same place)
ICT	Information and Communication Technologies
ie	id est (that is)
IIDP	Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Procesal (Iberoamerican Institute of Procedural Law)
JC	Judicial Code
JPY	Japanese Yen
LEC	Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil
n	footnote (internal, ie, within the same chapter)
no	number/numbers
para	paragraph/paragraphs
pt	part
Sec	Section/Sections
SCC	Supreme Court Canada
SME	small and medium-sized enterprise
supp	supplement/supplements
trans/tr	translated, translation/translator
UK	United Kingdom
UNIDROIT	Institut international pour l'unification du droit privé (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law)
UP	University Press
US / USA	United States of America
USD	United States Dollar
v	versus
vol	volume/volumes
WB	World Bank
ZKM	Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement

Legislation

International/Supranational

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981

Agreement on the European Economic Area, OJ No L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 (EU)

American Convention on Human Rights 1969

Arab Charter on Human Rights 2004

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 339, 21.12.2007, p. 3-41 (EU)

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commerical Matters 1965 (HCCH)

Council Directive on unfair contract terms in consumer contracts, 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (EU)

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000

European Convention on Human Rights 1950

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”), COM(2022) 177 final (EU)

Regulation establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 (EU)

Regulation on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of civil or commercial matters, 2020/1783 of 25 November 2020 (EU)

Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 (EU)

Statute of the Arab Court of Human Rights 2014

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

National

Act on the Expediting of Trials 2003 (Japan)

Act on Land and Building Leases 1991 (Japan)

Belgian Judicial Code (see Gerechtelijk Wetboek)

Burgerlijk Wetboek, Dutch Civil Code (the Netherlands)

Civil Provisional Remedies Act 1989 (Japan)

Code de l’organisation judiciaire (French Courts Constitution Act) (France)

Code de procédure civile (Code of Civil Procedure) (France)

Code of Judicial Procedure (Finland)

Código Civil Español (Spanish Civil Code) (Spain)

Código de Processo Civil Brasileiro 2015 (Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure) (Brazil)

Constitución Española 1978 (The Spanish Constitution) (Spain)

Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (The Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil) (Brazil)

De Belgische Grondwet, La Constitution Belge (The Belgian Constitution) (Belgium)

Decrét n° 75-1123 du 5 deciembre 1975 instituant un nouveau code de procédure civile 1975 (Decree establishing a new code of civil procedure) (France)

Decrét n° 2010-1165 du 1er octobre 2010 relatif á la conciliation et á la procedure orale en matière civile, commerciale et sociale 2010 (Decree dealing with conciliation and oral proceedings in civil, commercial and social matters) (France)

Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Netherlands)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (USA)

Gerechtelijk Wetboek, Code Judiciaire (Belgian Judicial Code) (Belgium)

Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Courts Constitution Act) (Germany)

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany) (Germany)

Iran’s Code of Civil Procedure (Iran)

Japanese Code of Civil Procedure 1996 (Japan)

Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov (The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway) (Norway)

Ley de Asistencia Jurídica Gratuita 1996 (Free Legal Aid Act) (Spain)

Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil 2000 (Spanish Code of Civil Procedure) (Spain)

Ley de Patentes 2015 (Law on Patents) (Spain)

Ley de Secretos Empresariales 2019 (Law on Trade Secrets) (Spain)

Ley de Seguridad Privada 2014 (Law on Private Security) (Spain)

Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (Organic Law on the Judiciary) (Spain)

Ley reguladora del uso de las tecnologias de la información y la comunicación en la Administración de Justicia 2011 (Law regulating the use of information and communication technologies in the Administration of Justice) (Spain)

Loi n° 2007-1787 du 20 décembre 2007 relative á la simplification du droit (1) 2007 (Law relating to the simplification of law) (France)

Loi n° 2020-002 du 7 janvier 2020 portant modification de la loi n° 2018-028 du 10 decembre 2018 instituant les juridictions commerciales en republique togolaise 2020 (Law on amending the law on instituting commercial restrictions) (Togo)

Lov om mekling og rettergang I sivile tvister (tvisteloven) 2005 (Act relating to the mediation and procedure in civil disputes (The Dispute Act)) (Norway)

Lov om rettsgebyr (rettsgebyrloven) 1982 (Court Fees Act) (Norway)

Northern Territory of Australia Supreme Court Rules 1987 (Australia)

Patent Act 1959 (Japan)

Personal Status Litigation Act 2003 (Japan)

Real Decreto por el que aprueba el Reglamento de Seguridad Privada 1994 (Law which approves the regulation of private security) (Spain)

Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (Germany – RVG – Law on the lawyers’ fees)

Rules of Court 2021 (Singapore)

Slovenian Civil Procedure Act 1999 (Slovenia)

The Act on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Judicial Matters 2009 (Slovenia)

The Civil Procedure Act (Serbia)

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (England)

The Constitution of Afghanistan 2004 (Afghanistan)

The Constitution of Japan (Japan)

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Nigeria)

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran 1979 (Iran)

The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Netherlands)

The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana 1992 (Ghana)

The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Slovenia)

The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)

The Constitution of the United States of America (USA)

The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure 1942 (Sweden)

Togo Code de procédure civile 2021 (Code of Civil Procedure) (Togo)

Unfair Competition Prevention Act 1993 (Japan)

United States Code (USA)

Zivilprozessordnung (Austrian Code of Civil Procedure) (Austria)

Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure) (Germany)

Zivilprozessordnung (Swiss Code of Civil Procedure) (Switzerland)

Model Rules and Guides

Compendium of “best practices” on time management of judicial proceedings 2006 (CEPEJ)

CEPEJ(2018)20R EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) REVISED SATURN GUIDELINES FOR JUDICIAL TIME MANAGEMENT (3rd revision) as adopted at the 31th plenary meeting of the CEPEJ Strasbourg, 3 and 4 December 2018.

CEPEJ(2006)13 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) Compendium of ‘best practices’ on time management of judicial proceedings (https://rm.coe.int/16807473ab).

Effective Management of Arbitration – A Guide for In-House Counsel and Other Party Representatives (ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR)

Guía para la celebración de actuaciones judiciales con medios telemáticos (Guide for conducting telematic judicial proceedings) (Spain)

Managing Arbitrations and Procedural Orders 2015 (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators)

Model European Rules of Civil Procedure 2020 (ELI/UNIDROIT)

Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings 2016 (UNCITRAL)

Practice Direction 32 - Evidence (England)

Practice Direction HC97 Written Submissions and Issue Papers 2020 (Ireland)

Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure 2005 (ALI/UNIDROIT)

Report on Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration (ICC Arbitration Commission)

Revised Saturn Guidelines for Judicial Time Management 2018 (CEPEJ)

Cases

International/Supranational

Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and Others v Samskip GmbH, Case C-3456/12 (CJEU), Judgment 15 November 2012 [ECLI:EU:C:2012:719].

Karel de Grote – Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen VZW v Susan Romy Jozef Kuijpers, Case C-147/16 (CJEU), Judgment 17 May 2018 [ECLI:EU:C:2018:320].

National

Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton (House of Lords, UK), [1983] 1 AC 191

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc (Supreme Court, United States), Judgment 6 June 1991 [501 U.S. 32 (1991)].

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (Supreme Court, United States), Judgment 12 June 1992 [504 U.S. 555 (1992)].

Case n° 96-44-672 (Cour de cassation, chambre sociale, France), Judgment 17 July 1997 [Bulletin 1997 V n° 281, p. 204].

Case 2710-2001 (Constitutional Court, Spain), Judgment 182/2003 of 20 October 2003 [ECLI:ES:TC:2003:182].

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombley (Supreme Court, United States), Judgment 21 May 2007 [550 U.S. 544 (2007)].

Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court, United States), Judgment 18 May 2009 [556 U.S. 662 (2009)].

Slovenian Constitutional Court No. Up-2443/08 of 7 October 2009.

Case U-I-164/09 (Constitutional Court, Slovenia), Judgment 4 February 2010 [ECLI:SI:USRS:2010:U.I.164.09].

Case U-I-200/09 (Constitutional Court, Slovenia), Judgment 20 May 2010 [ECLI: SI:USRS:2010:U.I.200.09].

Constitutional Court of Slovenia, Judgment Up-603/13, 16 February 2016.

Cour de cassation, Belgium, Judgment 23 December 2016, published in Rechtskundig Weekblad 2016-17, 1090.

Young Crystal Ltd and Others v Hang Seng Bank Ltd (Court of First Instance, Hong Kong), Judgment 30 May 2022 [2022 HKCFI 1589].

Bibliography

Adrian L, ‘The Role of Court-Connected Mediation and Judicial Settlement Efforts in the Preparatory Stage’ in L Ervo and A Nylund (ed), Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Nordic and Former Communist Countries (Springer 2016)

Adrian L / Bager S / Petersen C S, ‘Perspektiver på forligsmægling‘ (2015) 3 Juristen 98

Ainuson K, ‘Role of Public and Media in Civil Court Proceedings in Ghana’ (2018) KAS African Law Study 57

Alberstein M and Zimerman N, ‘Judicial Conflict Resolution in Italy, Israel and England and Wales: A Comparative Analysis of the Regulation of Judges' Settlement Activities’ in Moscati M F / Palmer M / Roberts M (ed), Comparative Dispute Resolution (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020)

Anders M and Gehle B, Zivilprozessordnung mit GVG und anderen Nebengesetzen (80th ed, Beck 2022)

Andrews N, ‘A New Civil Procedure Code for England: Party-Control Going, Going, Gone’ (2000) 19 Civil Justice Quarterly 19

––, ‘Case Management and Procedural Discipline in England & Wales: Fundamentals of an Essential New Technique’ in van Rhee C H and Fu Y (ed), Civil Litigation in China and Europe Essays on the Role of the Judge and the Parties (Springer 2014)

––, Andrews on Civil Processes – Court Proceedings, Arbitration & Mediation (2nd edn, Intersentia 2019)

Archerd E R, ‘Evaluating Mediation's Future’ (2020) 31 Journal of Dispute Resolution 51

Backer I L, Norsk sivilprosess (2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget Oslo 2020)

Backer I L, ‘Goals of Civil Justice in Norway: Readiness for a Pragmatic Reform’ in Uzelac A, Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems (Springer 2014) 105

Bang-Pedersen U R / Christensen L H / Petersen C S, Den civile retspleje (5th ed, Hans Reitzels Forlag 2020)

Bersier Ladavac N / Bezemek C / Schauer F, Common Law – Civil Law. The Great Divide? (Springer 2022)

Braun J, Lehrbuch des Zivilprozessrechts (Siebeck 2014)

Cadiet L, Droit judiciaire prive (3rd edn, Litec 2000)

Chainais C / Ferrand F / Maier L / Guinchard S, Procédure civile (36th edn, Dalloz 2022)

Chang Y and Klerman D, ‘Settlement Around the World: Settlement Rates in the Largest Economies’ (2022) 14(1) Journal of Legal Analysis 80

Chang-qing S, ‘From Judgment to Settlement: The Impact of ADR on Judicial Functions from a Compartive Perspective’ in Sourdin T and Zariski A, The Multi-tasking Judge. Comparative Judicial Dispute Resolution, (Thomson Reuters 2013)

Chase O G, ‘American “Exceptionalism” and Comparative Procedure’ (2002) 50(2) American Journal of Comparative Law 277

Cipriani F, ‘Nel centenario del regolamento di Klein (Il proceso civile tra libertà e autorità)’ (1995) Rivista di diritto processuale 969

Damaška M, The Faces of Justice and State Authority. A Comparative Approach to State Authority (Yale University Press 1986)

de la Oliva Santos A, Curso de Derecho Procesal Civil I. Parte General (4th ed, Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces 2019)

––, Curso de Derecho Procesal Civil II. Parte Especial (3rd ed, Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces 2016)

––, El papel de juez en el proceso civil (Civitas 2012)

––, Comentarios a la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Civitas 2001)

Deason E E, ‘Beyond “Managerial Judges”: Appropriate Roles in Settlement’ (2017) 78 Ohio State Law Journal 73

Diez-Picazo G, ‘Procedural Reform in Spain’ in Trocker N / Varano V (ed), The Reforms of Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective (Giappichelli editore 2005)

Dodson S, ‘Comparative convergences in pleading standards’ (2010) 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 411

Eliot T S, ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent. Part I’, The Egoist, September 1919

Englebert J and Taton X (ed), Droit du procès civil, Vol. I (Anthemis 2019)

Ervo L, ‘Swedish-Finnish Preparatory Proceedings: Filtering and Process Techniques’ in L Ervo and A Nylund (ed), Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Nordic and Former Communist Countries (Springer 2016)

Fairén Guillén V, ‘Notas sobre el principio de concentración’ in Estudios de Derecho Procesal (Editorial Revista de Derecho Privado 1955)

Ferrand F, ‘Procedural Reform in France’ in Trocker V and Varano V (ed), The Reforms of Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective (Giappichelli editore 2005)

Fiss O M, ‘Against Settlement’ (1983) 93 Yale Law Journal 1073

Fredriksen H H and Strandberg M, ‘Impact of the ELI/UNIDROIT European Model Rules for Civil Procedure on national law – the case of Norway’ (2023) 3 Oslo Law Review 152

Galič A, ‘The Preparatory Stage of Civil Proceedings in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia: Halfway There Yet?’ in L Ervo and A Nylund (ed), Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings: A Comparative Study of Nordic and Former Communist Countries (Springer 2016)

––, Civil Procedure Slovenia (Wolters Kluwer 2020)

––, ‘(In)compatibility of procedural preclusions with the goals of civil justice: an ongoing debate in Slovenia‘ in Uzelac A, Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems (Springer 2014) 221

Gascón Inchausti F, ‘Challenges for orality in times of remote hearings: efficiency, immediacy and public proceedings’ (2022) 2(1) International Journal of Procedural Law 8

Genn H, Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge University Press 2010)

Gensler S S, ‘Judicial Case Management: Caught in the Crossfire’ (2010) Duke Law Journal 669

Geoffrey S, An Introduction to Comparative Law Theory and Method (Bloomsbury 2014)

Gilles P, Prozessrechtsvergleichung / Comparative Procedure Law (Gieseking 1996)

Glässer U and Schroeter K (ed), Gerichtliche Mediation. Grundsatzfragen, Etablierungserfahrungen und Zukunftsperspektiven (Nomos 2011)

Glunz B, Psychologische Effekte beim gerichtlichen Einsatz von Videotechnik (Siebeck 2012)

Gottwald P, ‘Comparative Civil Procedure’ (2005) 22 Ritsumeikan Law Review 23

Greger R, ‘§ 139’ in Althammer C , Zöller Zivilprozessordnung (34th ed, Otto Schmidt 2022)

Hjort M A, ‘Sources of Inspiration of Nordic Procedural Law: Choices and Objectives of the Legal Reforms’ in Ervo L / Letto-Vanamo P / Nylund A (ed), Rethinking Nordic Courts (Springer 2021)

Huber S, ‘Prozessrechtsvergleichung heute’ in Hess B (ed), Europäisches Insolvenzrecht – Grundsätzliche Fragen der Prozessrechtsvergleichung (Gieseking 2019)

––, ‘Mündlichkeit und Unmittelbarkeit’ (2022) ZZP 183

––, ‘Rule 47’ in Inchausti Gascón F / Smith V / Stadler A (ed.), ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure – a commentary (Edward Elgar 2023)

––, ‘Rule 49’ in Inchausti Gascón F / Smith V / Stadler A (ed.), ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure – a commentary (Edward Elgar 2023)

Humberto T J, Curso de Processo Civil, vol. I (64th ed, Forense 2023)

Jauernig M and Hess B, Zivilprozessrecht (30th ed, Beck 2011)

Keet M / Heavin H / Lande J, Litigation Interest and Risk Assessment: Help Your Clients Make Good Litigation Decisions (American Bar Association 2020)

Krans B / Nylund A (ed), Civil Courts Coping with Covid-19 (eleven international publishing 2021 – open access)

Laenens J / Thiriar P / Vanlerberghe B / Scheers D / Rutten S, Handboek gerechtelijk recht (5th ed, Intersentia 2020)

Lahav A, In praise of litigation (Oxford University Press 2017) 

Letto-Vanamo P, ‘Judicial Dispute Resolution and its Many Alternatives: The Nordic Experience’ in Zekoll J / Bälz M / Amelung I, Formalisation and Flexibilisation in Dispute Resolution (Brill Nijhoff 2014)

Marcus R, ‘Putting American Procedural Exceptionalism into a Globalized Context’ (2005) 53(3) American Journal of Comparative Law 709

Mendes A G de Castro and Mendes  de Castro C P, ‘O Acesso à Justiça (Digital) na Justiça Contemporânea’ (2023) 24(2) Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 1

Mendes A G de Castro and de Castro C P, ‘Direito Processual Comparado, Teoria Geral do Processo e Precedentes’ (2022) 23 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 49

Mendes A G de Castro and Paes de Castro C, ‘Direito Processual Comparado, Teoria Geral do Processo e Precedentes’ (2022) 23 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 49

Mendes A G de Castro, ‘O Direito Processual Comparado no Mundo Contemporâneo’ (2020) 21 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 1

Merryman J H and Pérez-Perdomo R, The Civil Law Tradition. An Introduction to the Legal Systems of Europe and Latin America (Stanford University Press 2018)

Mougenot D, Principes de droit judiciaire (2nd ed, Larcier 2020)

Nylund A and Cabral P (ed), ‘Contractualisation of Civil Litigation’ (Intersentia 2023)

Nylund A, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution, Justice and Accountability in Norwegian Civil Justice’ in Hoevenaars J / Kas B / Kramer X / Themeli E (ed), Frontier in Civil Justice: Privatisation, Monetisation and Digitisation (Edward Elgar Publishing 2022)

––, ‘Case Management in a Comparative Perspective: Regulation, principles and practice’ (2019) 292 Revista do processo – RePro 377

––, ‘Civil Procedure in Norway’, International Encyclopedia of Laws/Civil Procedure (2nd edn, Wolter Kluwer 2022)

––, ‘Institutional Aspects of the Nordic Justice Systems: Striving for Consolidation and Settlements’ in L Ervo, P Letto-Vanamo and A Nylund (ed), Rethinking Nordic Courts (Springer 2021)

––, ‘Oral Proceedings during the Preparatory Stage’ (2022) 12 International Journal of Procedural Law 57

––, ‘The Structure of Civil Proceedings – Convergence Through the Main Hearing Model’ Civil Procedure Review (2018) 2(9) 13

––, ‘Introduction to the Preparatory Stage of Civil Proceeding’ in Ervo L and Nylund A (ed) Current Trends in Preparatory Proceedings (Springer 2016)

––, ‘Institutional aspects of Nordic courts’ in L Ervo / Letto-Vanamo P / Nylund A (ed), Rethinking Nordic Courts (Springer 2021)

Ota S, ‘Reform of Civil Procedure in Japan‘ (2001) 49 American Journal of Comparative Law 561

Perez Ragone A, ‘An Approach and General Overview to Framing the Structure of the Court System and Case Management - General Report’ (2017) International Association of Procedural Law Meeting

Picardi N, ‘Le riforme processuali e social di Franz Klein’ (2012) 2(16) Historia e ius 8

Resnik J, ‘Diffusing Disputes: The Public in the Private of Arbitration, the Private in Courts, and the Erasure of Rights’ (2014) 124 Yale Law Journal 2804

––, ‘Mediating Preferences: Litigant Preferences for Process and Judicial Preferences for Settlement’ (2002) Journal of Dispute Resolution 155

––, ‘Managerial Judges’ (1982) 96 Harvard Law Review 374

Roberge J-F, ‘The Future of Judicial Dispute Resolution: A Judge who Facilitates Participatory Justice’ in Sourdin T and Zariski A, The Multi-tasking Judge. Comparative Judicial Dispute Resolution, (Thomson Reuters 2013)

Roberge J-F, ‘Sense of Access to Justice as a Framework for Civil Procedure Justice Reform: An Empirical Assessment of Judicial Settlement Conferences in Quebec (Canada)’ (2016) 17(2) Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 341

Rosenberg L / Schwab K / Gottwald P, Zivilprozessrecht (18th edition, Beck 2018)

Rueb A S / Gras E / Hendrikse R G / Jongbloed A W, Compendium van het Burgerlijk procesrecht (Wolters Kluwer 2021)

Salazar Á M, ‘Evolución histórica de la oralidad y la escritura en el proceso civil español y ecuatoriano’ (2017) 6 Ius Humani. Revista de Derecho 73

Skoghøy J E A, Tvisteløsning (4th ed, Universitetsforlaget 2022)

Sourdin T, ‘Facilitative Judging: Science, Sense and Sensibility’ in Sourdin T and Zariski A, The Multi-tasking Judge. Comparative Judicial Dispute Resolution, (Thomson Reuters 2013)

Steenberghe H M M, ‘Regie op schikking: de actieve rechter in een bemiddelende rol‘ (2022) 1 Tijdschrift voor de Procespraktijk 12

Strandberg M, ‘Standards of Evidence in Scandinavia’ in Tichý L Standard of Proof in Europe (Siebeck 2019)

Strandberg M and Nylund A, ‘Utsikt til innsikt: En komparativ tilnærming til reform av reglene om anke til lagmannsretten over dommer i sivile saker’ (2020) Lov og Rett 59(2) 84

Stürner R, ‘The Principles of Transnational Procedure. An Introduction to Their Basic Conceptions’ (2015) RabelsZ 224

Taniguchi Y, ‘The Development of and Adversary System in Japanese Civil Procedure’ in Foote D H (ed), Law in Japan: A Turning Point (University of Washington Press 2007) 80

––, ‘The 1996 Code of Civil Procedure in Japan: A Procedure for the Coming Century’ (1997) 45 American Journal of Comparative Law 767

Trocker V and Varano V, ‘Concluding Remarks’ in Trocker V and Varano V (ed), The Reforms of Civil Procedure in Comparative Perspective (Giappichelli editore 2005)

Vallines García E, La preclusión en el proceso civil (Civitas 2004),

van Hoecke M, ‘Deep-level Comparative Law’ in van Hoecke M (ed), Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law (Hart 2004)

van Rhee R, 'European traditions in civil procedure', 1999 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 269

van Rhee R, ‘Judicial Case Management and Loyal Cooperation: Towards Harmonized Rules of European Civil Procedure’ in Aarli R and Sanders A (ed), Courts in Evolving Societies: A Sino-European Dialogue between Judges and Academics, (Brill Nijhoff 2021)

Verkerk R, 'Powers of the Judge: The Netherlands' in R van Rhee (ed), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Intersentia 2005), 281

Walker J and Chase O, Common Law, Civil Law and the Future Categories (Lexis Nexis 2010)

Wall A, ‘Austria & Germany: A History of Successful Reform’ in van Rhee C H and Fu Y (ed), Civil Litigation in China and Europe Essays on the Role of the Judge and the Parties (Springer 2014)

Wallermann Ghavanini A, ‘Procedural Autonomy in Sweden: Is Materielle Prozessleitung the Answer?’ in Krans B and Nylund A (ed), Procedural Autonomy Across Europe (Intersentia 2020)

Wallimann M, Der Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz im Zivilprozess (Siebeck 2016)

Welsh N A, ‘Magistrate Judges, Settlement, and Procedural Justice’ (2016) 16 Nevada Law Journal 1020

Willmann P, Die Konzentrationsmaxime (Duncker & Humblot 2004)

Wissler R L, ‘Court-Connected Settlement Procedures: Mediation and Judicial Settlement Conferences’ (2011) 26 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 271.

Woolf H, Access to Justice. Final Report, to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (Lord Chancellors Dept 1996)

Zariski A, ‘Judicial dispute resolution in Canada: Towards accessible dispute resolution’ (2018) 35 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 433

Zariski A, ‘Understanding Judges’ Responses to Judicial Dispute Resolution: A Framework for Comparison’ in Sourdin T and Zariski A, The Multi-tasking Judge. Comparative Judicial Dispute Resolution, (Thomson Reuters 2013)

---