Multi agents simulation of justice trials to support control management and reduction of civil trials duration

Thanks to the digitalization of Civil Legal Processes that has been carried out in Italy since 2005, a consistent flow of data has been generated regarding all phases of Civil Trials. The Italian Ministry of Justice has recognized the opportunity to better assess the quality of Courts’ management, seeking ways to implement Decision Support Systems to aid the work of Court Presidents. In collaboration with the Court of Livorno, which has provided data and case studies, KPIs and indicators have been developed, and have been later used within an Agent-based simulation framework to assess the behaviour of Chancellors and Judges in response to Court Presidents’ decisions, and in particular to verify the effects of such decision on Processes’ duration. This paper presents the Agent-based simulation approaches adopted to predict the effects of Presidents’ decisions, by taking in consideration the behaviour of Chancellors and Judges, derived from the examination of past Trials, whose aspects have been recorded by the Court’s digital system.

THE LIMITS OF EXPERT COMPETENCE AND THEIR LEGAL CONSEQUENCES IN FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS AT CIVIL TRIALS IN RUSSIA

The article deals with the issue of determining the limits of expert competence in forensic examinations in case of improper provision of medical care in civil proceedings. The practical example shows the features of legal evaluation of expert opinion by the court in case an expert goes beyond the limits of specific knowledge. Special attention is paid to objective difficulties in differentiation of an expert legal assessment and a lawenforcement act, which arise while performing examinations on materials of medical malpractice.

Contestația privind tergiversarea procesului. Aspecte teoretice şi practice

"This article examines the legal institution of the challenge against the delaying of proceedings, having as premise the raison d’être of this institution. The Romanian legislator took a first step towards conducting proceedings if not within an optimal and foreseeable period, at least within a reasonable one, by amending the Code of Civil Procedure to introduce the institution of the challenge meant to expedite the conducting of civil trials. Throughout this article we will look at how the challenge against the delaying of proceedings has been regulated, but in particular at the problems that have arisen in practice. Finally, several proposals de lege ferenda are put forward, which should be implemented by the legislator in order for this legal institution to achieve the purpose for which it has been adopted, followed by a few conclusions reflecting the state of play of this institution, but especially answering the question of whether the challenge against the delaying of proceedings is an effective remedy, within the meaning of art. 13 of the Convention, against the excessive duration of proceedings."

32. Witness Statements, Affidavits, and Depositions

This chapter discusses the rules relating to the use of written evidence in civil proceedings. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), evidence given in civil trials is given primarily from the witness box, but with witness statements exchanged well before trial standing as the evidence-in-chief of the witnesses. The parties are required to exchange their witnesses’ statements in order to save time and costs at trial, and to enable the parties to evaluate the merits of their dispute with a view to settlement. Written evidence in support of interim applications can be given by a variety of different methods, but the principal means is by way of signed witness statements.

Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof

The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak—there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this paper, I will recapitulate the familiar arguments for this thesis, before defending a more radical one: The 50%+ standard is also too strong—there are circumstances in which a court should find that a defendant is liable, even though the evidence presented makes it less than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. I will argue that the latter thesis follows naturally from the former once we accept that the parties in a civil trial are to be treated equally. I will conclude by sketching an alternative interpretation of the civil standard of proof

Boekbesprekings: Peter van Blerk – Preparation for Civil Trials

None