Cross-Border Litigation in Central Europe EU Private International Law Before National Courts As a consequence of the ever-increasing intercourse within the enlarged and diverse European Union (EU), a growing number of businesses, consumers, and families rely on EU private international law instruments to seek justice in cross-border disputes. This invaluable reference book offers an in-depth understanding of this process in Central Europe and is the first to provide a comprehensive and analytical overview of the judicial practice in the region and to make this case law accessible in English. Presenting the results of a major EU-funded project (CEPIL), the book offers an insight into the reality of EU private international law and cross-border litigation in Central Europe: it provides a comprehensive and exhaustive presentation of the case law in 10 Central European Member States (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia); it covers all fields of EU private international law (general civil and commercial, insolvency, family and succession matters); it inquires whether EU private international law functions optimally in the Central European Member States in order to secure a Europe of law and justice; it examines whether EU private international law instruments are applied in a correct and uniform manner and whether national courts deal appropriately with disputes having a cross-border element; it analyzes whether the current legal and institutional architecture is susceptible of securing legal certainty and an effective remedy for cross-border litigants. This important practical resource helps businesses, consumers, families and legal counsels engaged in cross-border mobility to gain access to essential information and analysis as to the application and interpretation of EU private international law in Central Europe. The book is also highly valuable to academics and researchers specializing in private international law by presenting the research findings of the CEPIL project.

Whether with regard to mass torts, civil-rights claims or as a means of private enforcement of antitrust and other regulatory policies: Collective redress of civil claims has been gaining in importance in Europe and worldwide. Long associated with the American model of class actions, an increasing number of EU Member States have made their own attempts at collective redress institutions. At the same time, the amendment of the Brussels I Regulation has shied away from dealing with the cross-border aspects of collective redress. In this book, a worldwide group of distinguished experts in private international law, civil procedure and regulatory law evaluate the problems of cross-border collective redress and provide proposals for a "European way" appropriate for the twenty-first century. This very topical work is, thus, indispensable for practitioners, academics, lobbyists and institutional agents.

Despite the growing national and international regulatory framework to support cross-border mediation, the use of such mediation appears to remain stubbornly low. This book focuses in particular on the European Union’s (EU’s) continued efforts to encourage the use of cross-border mediation and examines why such efforts have had a limited impact. It does so by drawing on rare, and at times surprising, detailed insights from in-house counsel of multinational companies regarding their use of EU cross-border commercial mediation. By viewing mediation through the lens of disputants, new and important findings regarding why disputants do, and do not, use cross-border mediation have emerged. While these findings are of primary relevance to EU policy and practice, they have implications far beyond the EU context at a time of increasing international interest in cross-border mediation. The analysis of the insights provided by the disputants reveals, for example: the prominent role played by negotiation as a cross-border dispute resolution process; that negotiation is a key comparator for disputants when considering whether to use mediation; how the EU’s continued focus on understanding and presenting mediation as an alternative to litigation has resulted in measures which are insufficient to address fully the barriers to the use of mediation; intriguing barriers to the use of mediation which arise from the association which disputants draw between mediation and negotiation; how the relationship which disputants draw between mediation and negotiation paradoxically raises both opportunities for, and obstacles to, the increased use of mediation; and what disputants need in order to increase their use of cross-border mediation. The qualitative nature (by way of interviews) of the research conducted for this book has enabled the identification of nuanced and novel findings regarding mediation’s position and potential in cross-border dispute resolution. These findings, together with a detailed examination of the EU Directive on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters and the EU’s continued initiatives to foster the use of mediation, form the foundation upon which this book’s recommendations are built. Changing the frame to view the use of mediation through the disputants’ perspective, as this book does, provides the opportunity for the EU to promote cross-border mediation in a way which resonates more deeply with disputants and responds more fully to their concerns and needs. This thought-provoking book will be of interest not only to European and national bodies seeking to promote the use of mediation but clearly also to dispute resolution academics, in-house counsel, and of course mediators and dispute resolution practitioners in general.

In recent decades, the rise in cross-border law violations has harmed numerous victims around the globe. The damages are often dispersed and low-level. As a result, the private enforcement gap has deepened and collective redress represents an interesting procedural instrument that is able to provide effective access to justice. This book analyses thoroughly the dominant collective redress models adopted in the EU. Data from 13 Member States has been catalogued and categorised. The research mainly focuses on the consumer law field but frequent references to financial and data protection-related cases are made. The dominant collective redress models are then studied from a private international law perspective. In particular, the book highlights the current mismatch between collective redress on the one hand, and rules on international jurisdiction on the other. Additionally, it notes that barriers to cross-border litigation remain significant for victims and their representatives. The unprecedented empirical study included in this book confirms that statement. Observing that EU measures have not satisfactorily lowered those barriers, the author proposes the creation of a new head of jurisdiction for cases of international collective redress. This book will be of interest to private international law scholars, researchers, students, legal practitioners, judges and policy-makers. It is a reference point for those with an interest in cross-border collective redress in particular, and private international law in general.

Upon request by the JURI Committee, this in-depth analysis highlights the difficulties that parties may encounter in relation to an expert report ordered in civil litigation, and the urgent need to harmonise practices and procedures existing in the different Member States of the EU.

Upon request by the JURI Committee, this in-depth analysis examines the rules applicable to judicial experts in the Czech Republic as well as the possibilities of establishing a list of European experts in the EU. Judicial expertise in crossborder litigation in the Czech Republic may be performed only by experts registered in a special national public directory. The existing European legal standards do not provide any satisfactory solution for cooperation between the courts and an expert from another Member State. The solution lies in unification of the basic standards for selection of an expert as well as the processing of the expert opinion. It will then be possible to establish a single list of European experts, which would be based on the harmonised national lists.