Case management and co-operation in the model European Rules of Civil Procedure

Rules of civil procedure reflect the state’s attitude to balancing competing interests of the litigants and the wider public interest. While litigants have an interest in protecting their autonomy in the conduct of litigation, there is a greater public interest in ensuring that litigation is conducted in an efficient, cost-effective and time-saving manner. It is for this purpose that the adversarial system came to be modified with some elements of the inquisitorial system, giving rise to case management whereby the judge takes an active part in regulating the litigation process. An important aspect of case management is identifying issues or disputes that can more appropriately be settled by less formal methods of dispute resolution. Where alternative dispute resolution is not favoured, the judge retains case management powers throughout the litigation process. This article presents an overview of the “Model European Rules of Civil Procedure” of the European Law Institute and UNIDROIT that are intended to guide member states of the European Union. The article concludes that the Model European Rules of Civil Procedure represent the best practice in civil litigation, the adoption of which by member states of the European Union will to a great extent harmonise litigation procedure throughout the European Union, although the Model European Rules may not be readily embraced by all the states

Some remarks concerning European law:The example of the anti-Helms-Burton measures

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Libertad Act, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, envisages, amongst other things, putting an end to the trafficking in property having belonged to US nationals which was confiscated by the Cuban government on or after January 1, 1959. Measures against Helms-Burton have been implemented by many states. The European Community and the European Union have also legislated against this Act. The EC measures against Helms-Burton are encompassed by a regulation dated November 22, 1996. In addition to the EC regulation, the European Union took action against Helms-Burton on the basis of Articles J.3 and K.3 of the Treaty on European Union. The Union decided that all of its Member States should take the measures they may find necessary to safeguard the interests of natural or legal persons within their territory which are not protected by the EC regulation Official Journal 1996 L 309/7. In order to understand the above European measures and the way in which they were enacted, some knowledge of the structure and competences of the European Community and the European Union is required. In this note the author discusses the difference between the European Community and the European Union; the type of instrument encompassing the anti-Helms-Burton measures; the legal basis of the EC and EU measures against Helms-Burton and some related issues