Search

This open access book examines whether a distinctly Nordic procedural or court culture exists and what the hallmarks of that culture are. Do Nordic courts and court proceedings share a distinct set of ideas and values that in combination constitute the core of a regional legal culture? How do Europeanisation, privatisation, diversification and digitisation influence courts and court proceedings in the Nordic countries? The book traces the genesis and formation of Nordic courts and justice systems to provide a richer comprehension of contemporary Nordic legal culture, and an understanding of the relationship between legal cultural stability and change. In answering these questions, the book provides models for conceptualising procedural culture. Nordic procedural culture has partly developed organically and is partly also the product of deliberate efforts to maintain a certain level of alignment between the Nordic countries. Studying Nordic cooperation enables us to gain a deeper understanding of current regional, European and global harmonisation processes within procedural law. The influx of supranational European law, increased use of alternative dispute resolution and growth in regulation density that produces a conflict between specialisation and coherence, have tangible impact on the role of courts in a democratic society, the form of court proceedings and court structures. This book examines whether and why some trends exert more tangible, or perhaps simply more perceptible, influence on procedural culture than others.

In the canton of Bern, the Child and Adult Protection Court performs the tasks of the judicial complaints authority in child and adult protection matters. It forms part of the civil department of the higher court and is made up of senior judges as well as specialist judges. The proceedings before this specialized court are characterized by a pluralism of legal sources: a federal rump order in the Swiss Civil Code is given concrete form by a cantonal special procedural code, which in turn refers to the general administrative process of the canton of Bern. The present work systematically presents the proceedings before the child and adult protection court and is intended to serve as an orientation for those seeking justice, lawyers and members of the court on procedural issues., Im Kanton Bern nimmt das Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzgericht die Aufgaben der gerichtlichen Beschwerdeinstanz in Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzsachen wahr. Es bildet einen Teil der Zivilabteilung des Obergerichts und ist mit Oberrichterinnen und Oberrichtern wie auch mit Fachrichterinnen und Fachrichtern besetzt. Das Verfahren vor diesem Fachgericht ist geprägt von einem Rechtsquellenpluralismus: Eine bundesrechtliche Rumpfordnung im Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuch wird konkretisiert durch eine kantonale Spezialverfahrensordnung, die wiederum lückenfüllend auf den allgemeinen Verwaltungsprozess des Kantons Bern verweist. Das vorliegende Werk stellt das Verfahren vor dem Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzgericht systematisch dar und soll sowohl den Rechtssuchenden, den Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälten als auch den Mitgliedern des Gerichts bei prozessualen Fragen als Orientierung dienen.

Finnish civil procedure has a close connection with other Scandinavian legal systems and co-operation between the States is active. In addition, the legislation, case-law and scholarly doctrine are more and more influenced by European co-operation through the EU and Council of Europe. The principles of free disposition, free assessment of evidence, audiatur altera pars, and burden of proof form the basis for an oral and direct public hearing. It follows from these due process principles that no methods of proof are forbidden but their relevance depends on the court’s assessment. The procedural doctrine in Finland is well established and has roots in the Swedish code of civil procedure of 1734, although it has gone through extensive reforms. On February 10, 2015 the Parliament of Finland passed the reform of chapter 17 of code of civil procedure, which contains the legislation on law of evidence. The extensive reform systematically updates and streamlines the previous legislation on evidence in addition to introducing new regulation e.g. on anonymous witnesses and banning invocation of evidence, which has been obtained by illegal means. The reform of chapter 17 concludes the systematic reform.

Ireland as a common law jurisdiction operates an adversarial system. Ireland has a written Constitution, Bunreacht na h-Éireann. Other sources of law include legislation and European Union Law and a doctrine of precedent operates. This paper comprises a discussion of the law of evidence in Irish Civil Procedure. It follows the structure of a questionnaire circulated for the purposes of a comparative study as part of an EU wide project and is repetitive in parts. It was completed between November 2013 and August 2014 and in the interim there have been significant developments in the Irish legal system, most notably the establishment of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court decision in D.P.P. v. J.C. [2015] IESC 31, which modified the exclusionary rule concerning unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The primary form of proof in Irish courts is oral evidence. Competent witnesses are generally compellable. Usually testimony, on oath or affirmation, is given viva voce in open court before the Judge and where necessary a jury, and in the presence of the parties. The right to cross-examine is constitutionally guaranteed. In civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The burden of proof rests on the party which asserts. The principle of audi alteram partem applies. A distinction is drawn between unconstitutionally obtained evidence and illegally obtained evidence. There is pre-trial discovery. Evidence taking by and for foreign courts is discussed.

Danish civil procedure is based on a number of procedural law principles that affect the taking of evidence, including the principle of party presentation, the principle of disposition, and the principle of free assessment of evidence. The nature of Danish procedural law tends towards the adversarial model rather than the inquisitorial model. Evidence is taken during the hearing and the principle of directness applies to the procedure. Danish civil procedure is governed by the 1916 Administration of Justice Act, which was originally strongly influenced by German law. The role of the judge is to lead the process and also to intervene in proceedings when uncertainty exists, rather than just to facilitate the process by ensuring the parties abide by the laws of civil procedure.

Three types of strategies have been common for court reform programmes: the ‘holistic’, the ‘tactical’, and the ‘strategic’ approach. This Research and Policy Note discusses strategic court reform and its underlying ideas. Its main intention is to alert those involved in judicial reform to some of the pitfalls and choices connected to particular types of interventions. The concluding remarks will comment on the political nature of judicial reform and on a model to design a proper sequence of interventions for judicial reform.