European Traditions in Civil Procedure. By C. H. van Rhee (ed)
| Date | 01 March 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00641_1.x |
| Published date | 01 March 2007 |
| Author | Déirdre M. Dwyer |
C. H. va n Rh ee (ed), European Traditions in Civil Procedure,Antwerp,
Intersentia [distrib in UK by Hart Publishing], 2005, 344pp, pb h66.
This book, the result of a project funded by the Netherlands Organisation for
Scienti¢c Research, and the joint Ius Commune Research School of the Univer-
sities of Maastricht, Utrecht and Leuven, is an invaluable introduction to the
development and current operation of domestic civil procedure in western
Europe. It helps to ¢ll a very apparent gap in a comparative legal literature predo-
minantlyconcerned with substantive rather than adjective law.This gap is all the
more important because, to quote van Rhee,‘[A]s will become evident from the
contributionsto the present book, the history of civilprocedure in Europe di¡ers
to a signi¢cant degree from the history of substantive private law . . . ’ (p. 5).
Although we might reasonably expect a legal academic to have some familiarity
with her own jurisdiction’s civil procedure rules, and a student of civil procedure
to be at least broadly familiar with the rules of two or three other jurisdictions,
few will be competent to have this level of understanding for each of the seven
countries presented here (and Switzerland retains separate civilprocedure laws in
each canton, despite the constitutional reforms of 2000). This breadth makes it
di⁄cult to evaluate the quality of the contributions for each of the jurisdictions,
or even whether there is equal coverage. From this reviewer’s knowledge of
French and German civil procedure, the relevant chapters appear to provide be a
thorough and comprehensive representation. However, the equivalent chapters
on English civil procedure appear thin on detail although nevertheless thorough
in the breadth of coverage.This perceived di¡erence is almost certainly subjective,
a product of di¡ering levels of familiarity with the di¡erent procedural systems
onthepartofthereader.
The work is divided intoa ‘General Part’ and‘Speci¢cTopics’.The General Part
provides an overview of the historical development (from around 1800) of civil
procedure systems in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, England andWales, and
Germany, Switzerland andAustria (the last threetaken as a group).There is then a
more detailed analysis, for each of these countries, in relationto the three speci¢c
topics of conciliation, party interrogation as evidence, and judicial powers. The
authors appear to recognise that there are not equally signi¢cant contributions
to be made in all areas for all jurisdictions. Thus, England and France receive
two chapters each in the General Part, while Belgium merits a single page on
party interrogation (p.253), since its provisions weremodelled on French practice,
which is already documented.
The seven countries selected here fall either side of an axis drawn fromLo ndon
to Vienna, passing through the Netherlands. This may not be entirely surprising,
since the research was funded and directed by Dutch institutions. It does mean,
however, that‘European’does not here include southern, eastern or northern parts
of the continent, and it may have been preferable to title this volume We s t er n
European LegalTraditions in Civil Procedure. To have inclu ded Scandin avia a nd th e for-
mer Soviet Block may admittedly have introduced a multiplicity of issues in relat-
ing between the di¡erent civil procedural traditions. It is currently possible for the
reader to begin to form an impression in her head, as a relatively self-contained
picture, of how the di¡erent jurisdictions have drawn from one another in their
Reviews
342 r2007 The Authors.Journal Compilation r2007 The Modern Law Review Limited.
(2007) 70(2)MLR 339^348
To continue reading
Request your trial