Transnational litigation and elements of fair trial

AutorRemo Caponi
CargoProfessore Ordinario nell´Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italia
Páginas550-579
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP. Volume 16. Julho a dezembro de 2015
Periódico Semestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 550-579
http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/redp/index
TRANS NATIO NAL LITIGATION AND EL EMENTS OF FAIR TRIAL
1
-
2
Remo Caponi
Professore Ordinario nell´Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italia
remo.caponi@gmail.com
SUM MARY:
I.
The regulation of transnational litigation is not worlds apart from civil procedural
law. Transnational liti gation does not s eek to achieve an y spec ial or part icular form of
justice. The prob lem is to balance acce ss to the cour ts and effect ive prot ecti on of
indi vidi dual rights with the right t o b e heard. Indeed, the se are "eternal" problems of
civil p rocedure.
II.
The Report points out from the outset th e distinc tion betw een subs tantiv e
law and
procedural law. It repres ents a crucial point in the regulation of transn ationa l
litigation before national court s. The distinct ion between substanti ve law and
proced ural law fo stere d the view that proc edural law is "neu tral" as regards substantive
law. There fore, any procedura l law cou ld i mplem ent any substantiv e law. As a result
of this idea, m ight have exp ected that the choice of l aw would have playe d a leading
role in tr ansnational l itigation. On the contr ary, quite the opposite is true. The daily
1
Artigo recebido em 30/09/2015 sob dispensa de revisão.
2
English version of the General Report delivered at the XI World Congress of the International Association of
Procedural Law (IAPL). "Procedural Justice in a Globalised World", Heidelberg, July 25-2 2011. The
quotations from the EU Commission's proposal for a recast of the Reg. EC No. 402 (Brussels I-bis (2010) have
been afterwards updated with the new Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of European Parliament and of the
Council. First of all. I would like to thank the Executive Commitee of the International Association of
Procedural Law (IAK) for asking me to deliver a general report "Transnational Litigation and Elements of Fair
Trial". I would also like to thank my colleagues fur E. national reports, namely: M. Aguirrezdh.21, Universidad
de los Andes. A. Perez Ragone. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso. A. Romero Segue'. Universidad
de los Andes (Chile); L. Sinopoli,. University Paris Ouest Na nterre La Defense (France); A. Stadler.
Universitiit Konstanz (Germany); N. Kiamaris, University of Athens (Greece); M. Kengycl, University of Pecs
(Hungary); E. Alessandro University di Roma Tor Vergara (Italy); B. Krans. University of Groningen, R. Van
Rhee, Universitat Maastricht. R. Verkijk. University of Maastricht (Holland); R. Perlingeiro Mendes Da Silva.
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro (Latin American Report); K. Weitz, University of War
(Poland); R.-A. Pantilimon, U niversity of Pecs (Ruma nia); V. V. Yarkov, Ural State Law Acadt (Russia); A.
GaliC, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia); F. Ga scon Inchausti, Universidad Complute de Madrid (Spain); T.
Dornej, Universitat Zurich (Switzerland); A. Landoni Sosa. Universidad de la Republica Oriental del Uruguay
(Uruguay). The national reports as well as the Italian version of General Report can be downloaded from
www.iap1-20II-congress.com. All reporters provided an impressive account of national experiences with
transnational litigation. Without their contributions general report could not have been written. I am also
grateful to Nicolò Trucker and Stephen Burba for their rightful comments and suggestions. Stephen Courts,
PhD Researcher. European University Institute, provided the language check. T he usual disclaimers apply.
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP. Volume 16. Julho a dezembro de 2015
Periódico Semestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 550-579
http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/redp/index
507
pract ice of co urts is d ominated by rules of jurisdic tion as w ell as in ternational civil
procedure.
III.
Public po licy goals to be achieved by the regulation of the judicia l process are more
usua l in tran snat ional lit igati on t han in do mestic di sputes.
The R eport refers to a numbe r of critical sit uations, in which overstatin g public policy
concerns can affec t th e balance between plaintiff s an d def endant's inte rests.
The first situati on st ems from th e l ink b etwee n t he ex ercis e o f j udic ial
juri sdiction and sovereignty. E.g., the English transient-service jurisdict ion and the
French citiz enshi p jurisdicti on completel y disre gard the considerat ion of f airness in
relat ion t o the defe ndant .
The sec ond cri tical situation conc erns th e transnational serv ice of pr ocess.
According to widespread opinion in the civil law s ystems, service of process is an act of
sovereignt y. Thus, the State interest in hav ing cont rol over it s territ orial so vereignt y
plays a role in the service of process upon a defendant, who is resident there. However,
this idea can be misleading. It is doubtful whether perceiving service as an act of
soverei gnty can really protect defendant s. On the con tra ry, due to the fact tha t it
cou ld
lead
the Forum State to use an intra-S tate fictitiou s se rvice of proce ss, like the
remise au parqu et, i t could in fact preju dice their situation.
The third critical situation where public policy intervenes in the assessment of
trans-nationa l ci vil proceedings can be related to the good functioning of the int ernal
market, w hich represe nts a c ruc ial publi c pol icy goal o f the E uropean U nio n. The
int eres t of the Eur opean Union in enhan cing th e funct ionin g of the interna l mark et has
led to a re marka ble simplifi cation of the enforcem ent of ju dgments in favour of the
plain tiff. Que stion s may be rais ed a s to whether this regulatio n is in itself harmful to
the notion of a fair t rial by penalizing the defendan t. Howe ver the answer must depend
on where the proceedings in fact take place. Conditions relating to the administration o f
justice di ffer according to the M ember St ate in q uestion and the prin cipl e of "mu tual
trus t" a moun ts of little m ore t han a rhet orical slogan.
IV.
General ly spe aking, the re gul ation of transna tional dis put es must fi rst
and foremo st seek to balance the plaintiff's interests (access to the court, effective
protection of asserted rights) and the defendant's interest s ( right to be heard). Pub lic
polic y concerns should normally play only a subordinat e role in two-party litigation,
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP. Volume 16. Julho a dezembro de 2015
Periódico Semestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 550-579
http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/redp/index
508
both domestic and tran snational . Pu blic polic y con cerns sho uld n or af fect the balan ce
betw een th e int erest s of plaintif fs an d defendants . Thi s is true for b oth the inter est o f
the State in exercisin g its j uris diction to adjud icate and any interest the State may
have in mai ntaining control ove r it s t errit ory (ter ritorial sovereignty), as we ll as F or
the Europe an Uni on po licies ref erring to th e "s oun d op era tio n" o f th e in ter nal
mar ket. Nor mal ly, publ ic co nce rns can interve ne in favour of either party in the
disput e. Thus, the Forum State interest in ex ercis ing
its
juris dicti on to adjudi cate is
normally exercis ed in favour of t he plaintiff where as the sovereign inter ests of the
Stat e in avoidi ng (or limi ting t o cer tain m eans ) cross-border discovery or service of
foreign process on its own territory favors the Pendant who is resident there.
When assessing the rela tionship between parties' interests and publ ic c oncern s,
one should observe th e fol lowin g guideline. If the i ntere st of a pol ity i s on the s ide o f
one parry (e ithe r the plain tiff or the defe ndan t), su ch a si tuation shoul d not be
detr imen tal to the "essence" (Wesen sgehalt ) of the fair trial guarantee and thereby
damaging th e counterparty. In other words, the regulation of transnational litigation as
well as the regulation of domestic litigation should focus on th e balance between the
parties ' int erests. Little room should be given to conside rations of public interest or of
public policy which are not related to either the pri vate inte rest of parries or to the needs
of jus tice.
Of cou rse, public po licy issues sh ould play a major rol e in our glob alized world.
However, it is primarily the political system t hat should be entrusted with th e task of
govern ing globaliz ation and the regula tion o f transnational litigatio n has a limited role
to play in this con text. From the perspective of advancing the public interest, the
regulation of tran snati onal litigation has a speci fic an d limi ted ye t imp ortan t task. It i s
the t ask o f maki ng the system of ci vil ju stice more competitive vi s-a-vi s arbitration.
In this regard legal scholarsh ip has made an important contribution : the joint
project between the American Law institut e and the Unidroit on the Principles of
Transn ational Civil Procedure. It has been carried out by lawyers and scholars belonging
to different procedural law trad itions an d cultures . The resul t is of great value due to the
balanced app roach of the propos ed s olutions. A set of prin ciples hav e been id entif ied
that should be considered as a common set of req uiremen ts for guaranteeing a fair t rial
in tran snatio nal litigation. They sh ould be not onl y a point of refer ence in the scientific

Para continuar a ler

PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT