Making European Private Law
Show Less

Making European Private Law

Governance Design

Edited by Fabrizio Cafaggi and Horatia Muir Watt

This book covers various perspectives on the challenge of designing governance for EPL: the implications of a multi-level system in terms of competences, the interplay between market integration and regulation, the legitimacy of private law making, the importance of self-regulation, the usefulness of conflict of law rules, the role of intergovernmental institutions, and the aftermath of enlargement. In addressing these, the book’s achievements are to successfully link two areas of scholarship that have so far remained separate, EPL and new modes of governance, and to address institutional reforms. The contributions offer different proposals to improve governance: the creation of a European Law institute, the improvement of judicial cooperation among national courts, the use of committees for implementation of EPL.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 3: Harmonizing Civil Litigation in Europe?

Michele Taruffo


Michele Taruffo 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most important issues that is emerging in the context of European harmonization is whether it is possible, and then whether it is useful, to try to figure out and enact a common system of procedural regulations. The reason why this issue is emerging is rather obvious: as long as things are proceeding in the sense of building up a common core of substantive private rules, it is almost intuitive to think of a possible common core of procedural rules for civil litigation. It may appear, actually, that using the same kind of procedural devices may be a relevant factor for the harmonization of a uniform European private law at the level of the enforcement. On closer scrutiny, however, things are much more complex that this, and the problem of a common procedural core deserves deeper and more accurate consideration. First of all, and at a very general level, one might think that although procedure is essential for the enforcement of substantive rules, this does not imply that ‘the same procedure’ is required in order to have a consistent application of such rules in different national jurisdictions. For instance, the same rules concerning a specific contract that is used in different national contexts may or may not be interpreted and applied in the same way independently of the kind of procedural rules that are applied by different national courts. In this sense, harmonizing the substantive rules, and even harmonizing their interpretation, is a specific...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.