EU as a Normative Power Enhancing Access to Justice: Small Claims Litigation and Romania

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remus Titiriga
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Gould

Online communication continues to pose challenges for the law and the administration of justice. One such challenge concerns its propensity to give rise to small defamation claims between ordinary people given the often-enormous costs of litigating defamation claims before the ordinary courts. This article promotes a reform agenda directed to meeting this challenge by (1) demonstrating the need for a proportionate means for resolving small defamation claims, having regard to access to justice considerations and other wider concerns; (2) establishing reasonable grounds for seriously considering deploying the traditional small-claims-proportionate response – small claims jurisdictions – for this purpose notwithstanding contraindications including the infamous complexity of defamation law; and (3) advancing a research pathway for the proportionate treatment of small defamation claims to guide decision-making and innovation. This article also advocates for consideration of this important issue in the ‘national reform process’ launched in 2018 for Australian defamation law.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-66

On 15-16 October 1999, a meeting of the European Council, whose influence on the development of civil process in the EU cannot be overestimated, took place in Tampere. It was at this meeting that the need was declared to develop and implement the EU level rules of procedure, which should simplify and accelerate cross-border litigation (within the EU). As a result, the Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure was adopted. On the basis of this Regulation, the European legislators sought to introduce a small claims procedure directly in the EU. However, their intentions and efforts have also become the guideline for legislators of those states that (so far) are not members of the EU, in particular, Ukraine. In more than a decade, the institute of small claims has found its consolidation in the reformed civil process of Ukraine, an associate partner of the EU. In this context, the question arises: have the goals and results of the institutes' implementation coincided within the law of the EU and Ukraine? Is there a positive experience of such an introduction and does this institute need further reforms? This publication is an attempt to provide answers to these questions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 101-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivi Tan

This article seeks to explore some of the implications of integrating information and communications technology into judicial processes to resolve small civil claims. It argues that, as ODR moves from individual private-sector initiatives to widespread public sector institutionalisation, governance and value questions will need to be seriously considered. This is because questions regarding the appropriateness of the use of certain ODR systems in the resolution of small claims and consumer disputes persist, especially in relation to the use of systems which are fully autonomous. For example, how are fundamental due process requirements to be balanced against the economic constraints of resolving low value disputes? What are the limits to the evolution of civil justice to make it more accessible? It is argued that, while ODR holds vast potential for increasing access to justice, attention needs to be given to the dispute system design to ensure that it achieves that goal and does not result in the erosion of fundamental values of civil justice, including accessibility, transparency, legal validity and accountability.


Author(s):  
Kristen E. Boon

Abstract Although international investment agreements are meant to enable investors of all sizes to protect their investments, the reality is that investment treaty arbitration is designed for large claims. In light of this reality, and recognizing that small claims are often not pursued due to the costs and practical obstacles associated with arbitration, this article proposes a simplified system of dispute resolution for claims that fall under a certain amount, such as USD 10 million. Such a mechanism would provide access to justice for small investors or investors with small claims, whose needs, at present, are largely unmet.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Anita Afriana

The fast litigation procedure stipulates under the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 year of 2015. That mechanism only requires small amount of permitted claim, it is 200 million Rupiah in maximum, it also settles claims in a very fast manner, 25 days in maximum. This fast procedural mechanism allocated to settle private dispute is called as “the small claims court”, in which, it is already implemented either in states with the civil law system or the common law system. The research methodology used in this article is juridical-normative and juridical kualitative analyze, to aim the SCC phisophy in Indonesia and the effectivity in enacting this mechanism of small claims court as one of the states that enact the civil judicial system. The results shows that the SCC  in indonesia is an advancement as a means of access to justice, in short it is a simple and inexpensive procedure.  that the fast litigation procedure stipulates under the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 year of 2015 is effectively enacted in civil judicial system in Indonesia. With society needs nowadays, the effort to increasing good services towards justice seeker, it’s inclusive because of the different mechanism of general judicial system under  HIR/RBG, it is not just about time but also with a judge investigation, simple evidentiary, and without legal effort


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-14 ◽  

Most legal systems have a long-standing tradition of simplified procedures for the disposition of small claims. Obviously, the elements that qualify a claim as ‘small’ vary: the most significant one, meaning the amount of money at stake, reflects the economic situation of a given country. In any event, and regardless of the maximum sum that can be recovered, small claims are the claims that are most important to ordinary citizens. For if people had to turn to full-fledged litigation, probably many would relinquish their rights, being unable to bear the costs and the delays of a traditional judicial procedure. That is the reason why legal systems should provide inexpensive and expedited procedures for small claims if they really want to fulfil the promise of access to justice for all. This essay examines the solutions adopted in France and Spain, pointing out that the use of easily available forms can make a big difference, as can also the accessibility of IT platforms specifically designed for the recovery of small credits. The state of affairs in Italy for simplified procedures for small claims is also addressed through a description of the jurisdiction of the Italian justices of the peace. It is astonishing to discover that almost a century ago scholars were already debating over the need to provide for procedural models suitable for small claims, so that one may be inclined to think that nothing new is invented when contemporary lawmakers provide for simplified procedures aimed at granting small claims an expedited, inexpensive but also fair treatment in court. More or less, all European Union legal systems deal with small claims in specific ways, sometimes allocating them to special judicial bodies (for instance, small claims courts or courts operated by lay judges), other times relying on procedural rules that are different from the ones followed before the ordinary courts of first instance. Alongside national procedures, the European Small Claims Procedure (hereinafter ESCP) exists for cross-border cases, so that two parallel procedures (the national one and the European one) are available for small claims that meet the requirements for the application of the European instrument at the choice of the plaintiff. This essay will not deal with the ESCP even though it is a piece of European legislation specifically aimed at devising a uniform, simplified procedure for the recovery of small claims across Member States. A recent, comprehensive study has analysed the ESCP in depth, clarifying the background of the Regulation, its purposes and shortcomings, and therefore this author does not consider it necessary to repeat concepts that have been masterfully expounded by someone else. Furthermore, the optional nature of the ESCP is such that its actual application, at least in some Member States, is negligible. This is the case, for instance, in Italy, where the practical relevance of the ESCP is inversely proportional to the theoretical commentaries on the Regulation produced by Italian scholars. In addition to Italy, the legal systems that this author has chosen for her analysis of simplified procedures for the disposition of small claims are those of France and Spain. This choice does not signify a value judgment, since a value judgment is not possible when looking at the two national procedures from a distance and without the benefit of empirical data. That said, the impression of a foreign ‘bystander’ is that both the French and the Spanish procedures are (at least, in theory) efficient, simple and with a touch of modernity that potentially will make them even more accessible to individuals. After all, the ability of a legal system to grant access to justice across the board is tested not with respect to cases where the amount at stake is large and the parties have all the resources (financial, social and cultural) necessary to navigate complex, costly and long court procedures, but with respect to cases where the amount at stake is small.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Anita Afriana

The fast litigation procedure stipulates under the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 year of 2015. That mechanism only requires small amount of permitted claim, it is 200 million Rupiah in maximum, it also settles claims in a very fast manner, 25 days in maximum. This fast procedural mechanism allocated to settle private dispute is called as “the small claims court”, in which, it is already implemented either in states with the civil law system or the common law system. The research methodology used in this article is juridical-normative and juridical kualitative analyze, to aim the SCC phisophy in Indonesia and the effectivity in enacting this mechanism of small claims court as one of the states that enact the civil judicial system. The results shows that the SCC  in indonesia is an advancement as a means of access to justice, in short it is a simple and inexpensive procedure.  that the fast litigation procedure stipulates under the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 year of 2015 is effectively enacted in civil judicial system in Indonesia. With society needs nowadays, the effort to increasing good services towards justice seeker, it’s inclusive because of the different mechanism of general judicial system under  HIR/RBG, it is not just about time but also with a judge investigation, simple evidentiary, and without legal effort


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document