Проводимо набір статей до публікації у науковому фаховому журналі
"Зовнішня торгівля: економіка, фінанси, право" з економічних та юридичних наук 

FREE FULL TEXT (PDF) 

UDC 341.623(1-87)   DOI: https://doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2020(108)03
ROMANADZE Louiza,
 
E-mail: Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.
ORCID: 0000-0003-0638-9056
  Candidate of  Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor,
Associate Professor at the Department of Economic Law and Procedure of the National University of "Odessa Law Academy"
Fountain road, 23, Odessa, 65000

THE EVOLUTION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND MEDIATIONS:
FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
 

Background. Ensuring the rule of law and access to justice remains a crucial goal of justice, while changing socio-economic conditions change the way in which such goals are achieved.
The peaceful settlement of disputes is inherent in the Ukrainian nation, so the promotion of mediation can be successful enough in the context of sound legislative regulation, which must certainly consider foreign experience.
The aim of the article is highlighting the decisive trends in civil litigation reform in the United States and EU Member States over the last decade and arguing that it is appropriate to use them in law-making in Ukraine.
Materials and methods. The normative basis of the study is legislative acts of the England and Wales, USA, Germany and France as well as EU legislation and CJEU decisions. The methodological basis of the research was the general scientific and special legal methods of cognition.
Results. The analysis indicates that there are two defining, at the same time, parallel processes: the reform of civil procedural law and the development of mediation legislation, which determines the theoretical and applied relevance of further studies of the interaction between alternative dispute resolution and civil justice. It can be assumed that such interaction can take the following forms: changing the paradigm of the exercise of the right to judicial protection and judicial recourse (in the context of introducing mandatory pre-trial dispute resolution methods); application of a dispute resolution institute with the participation of a judge; development of court mediation. The potential outcome of such engagement should be the further transformation of civil justice towards the prevailing conciliation character of justice.
Conclusion. Ukrainian law-making should be directed to the legislative regulationof the mediation procedure and the introduction of incentives for the parties to the dispute to resort to extrajudicial methods. Building public trust in mediation as one of the most recognized and effective ways of resolving disputes should be a task not only of the mediator community but also of the state. We believe that the introduction of court mediation can be one of the factors of the above processes, but at the same time requires a theoretical justification for observance of the principles of the rule of law and the right to judicial protection.
 
Keywords: civil proceedings, mediation, rule of  law, litigation, civil dispute.
 

REFERENCES 

  1. Mazaraki, N. A. (2018). Mediacija v JeS: dosvid dlja Ukrai'ny. Jevropejs'ki integracijni procesy v ХХI stolitti: kljuchovi tendencii', osnovni vyklyky ta novi mozhlyvosti zbirnyk materialiv Mizhnarodnoi' naukovo-praktychnoi' konferencii' (m. Kyi'v, 26-27 bereznja 2018 r.) [EU Mediation: experience for Ukraine. European integration processes in the 21st century: key trends, key challenges and new opportunities. Collection of materials of the International scientific and practical Conference (Kyiv, March 26-27, 2018)]. Kyiv: Ukraïns'ka Asociacija Vykladachiv iDoslidnykiv Jevropey̆s'koï Integraciï [Ukrainian Association of Teachers and Researchers of European Integration], (pp. 287-296) [in Ukrainian].
  2. Kyselova, T. (2017). Integration of Mediation into Ukrainian Court System: Policy Paper. October 17, 2017. Council of Europe, Kyiv. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3054519. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3054519 [in English].
  3. Sakara, N. Ju. (2006). Problema dostupnosti pravosuddja u cyvil'nyh spravah [The problem of accessibility of justice in civil cases]. Candidate’s thesis, Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
  4. Brown, H., Marriott, A. (2011). ADR principles and practice. Third edition London: Thomson Reuters [in English].
  5. Owen, M. Fiss (1984). Commentary, Against Settlement, 93 YALE L.J. 1073, 1075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796205 [in English].
  6. Zuckerman, Adrian (Ed.).(2012). Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Oxford Scholarship Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298335.001.0001 [in English].
  7. Cuvina, T. A. (2019). Problemni pytannja cyvil'noi' jurysdykcii' v konteksti pryncypu verhovenstva prava [Problematic issues of civil jurisdiction in the context of the rule of law]. Problemy zakonnosti – Problems of legality. (Is. 147). (pp. 85-96). Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Pz_2019_147_10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.147.182548 [in Ukrainian].
  8. Komarov, V. V. (Ed.). (2016). Cyvil'ne sudochynstvo Ukrai'ny: Osnovni zasady ta instytuty [Civil procedure of Ukraine: Basic principles and institutions]. Nacional'nyj jurydychnyj universytet im. Jaroslava Mudrogo. Harkiv: Pravo [Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Kharkiv: Law] [in Ukrainian].
  9. Richard, L. Marcus, Modest (2015). Procedural Reform Advances in the U.S., 20 Zeitschriftfür Zivil prozess International 291. Retrieved from http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1473 [in English].
  10. Kenneth, Berman (2016). Reinvenring Discovery under the New Federal Rules, 42 Litigation 22 [in English].
  11. Kramer, X. (n.d.). The domino effect of international commercial courts in Europe – Who’s next? conflictoflaws.net. Retrieved from http://conflictoflaws.net/2018/the-domino-effect-of-international-commercial-courts-in-europe-whos-next [in English].
  12. 2015 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. (n.d.). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf [in English].
  13. Directive 2008/52, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters, 2008 OJ (L 136). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0052 [in English].
  14. De Palo, G., & Romina, Canessa. (2014). leeping – Comatose Only Mandatory Consideration of Mediation Can Awake Sleeping Beauty in the European Union, 16 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 713 [in English]. 
  15. C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08 – RosalbaAlassini JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 18 March 2010. Retrieved from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=79649&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=659017 [in English].
  16. C-75/16 – Menini and Rampanelli Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2017. Retrieved from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-75/16 [in English].