CC BY
16Информация для цитирования:
Брановицкий К.Л., Бессонова А.И. РАЗВИТИЕ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНОГО ПРАВА В РАМКАХ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА И НА ПОСТСОВЕТСКОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ // Herald of The Euro Asian Law Congress. 2018. № 1. С. 44-54.
Branovitsky K., Bessonova A. DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND WITHIN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE. Herald of The Euro-Asian Law Congress. 2018. Is. 1. Pp. 44-54.
УДК 346
BISAC LAW012000 LAW / Civil Procedure
РАЗВИТИЕ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО ПРОЦЕССУАЛЬНОГО ПРАВА В РАМКАХ ЕВРОПЕЙСКОГО СОЮЗА И НА ПОСТСОВЕТСКОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ
КОНСТАНТИН ЛЕОНИДОВИЧ БРАНОВИЦКИЙ, Уральский государственный юридический университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
АНАСТАСИЯ ИГОРЕВНА БЕССОНОВА, Уральский государственный юридический университет (Екатеринбург, Россия)
Введение: одно из важнейших проявлений глобализации мировой экономической системы - ее движение к интеграции, выражающейся в том числе в создании экономических интеграционных объединений. При этом в рамках каждого экономического интеграционного объединения страны-участницы сталкиваются как с внешними (сотрудничество с другими государствами и экономическими интеграционными объединениями), так и с внутренними (укрепление и развитие сотрудничества между государствами-участниками, повышение уровня интеграции, сближение правовых систем и т. д.) вызовами. Данная тенденция типична и для постсоветских государств. Целью данной статьи является анализ процесса сближения и гармонизации гражданского процессуального права на территории Евросоюза, а также исследование возможности для гармонизации и сближения гражданского процессуального права на постсоветском пространстве в рамках Евразийского экономического союза.
Методы: в статье проводится анализ источников, содержащих нормы, регулирующие процесс сближения и гармонизации гражданского процессуального права Европейского союза и Евразийского экономического союза. К таким источникам, в частности, относятся доклад Европейской комиссии от 11 марта 2014 г. «Программа развития юстиции до 2020 года - Повышение доверия, мобильности и развития в ЕС», а также Резолюция Европейского парламента с рекомендациями в части минимальных стандартов гражданского процесса от 11 февраля 2017. Также авторами используется метод сравнительного анализа процессов интеграции в рамках Евросоюза и в рамках Евразийского экономического союза.
Анализ: первая часть данной статьи посвящена исследованию общих тенденций в сфере гражданского процесса, гражданского процессуального права Европейского союза на современном этапе и минимальных стандартов гражданского процесса, разработанных Европейской комиссией. В статье представлен сравнительный анализ интеграционных процессов в Евросоюзе и на постсоветском пространстве. В заключительной части статьи сформулированы предпосылки дальнейшей интеграции в сфере гражданского процесса на постсоветском пространстве.
Результаты: несмотря на отсутствие очевидного развития в сфере гармонизации и сближения гражданского процессуального права на евразийском пространстве, схожесть правовых систем постсоветских государств представляет собой прочную основу для данных процессов в рамках Евразийского
экономического союза. Предпосылками для гармонизации и сближения гражданского процессуального права являются: превалирующее подчинение процессуальной форме, основанное на жесткой связанности суда и участников процесса законом; общность принципов гражданского процесса (законность, диспози-тивность, состязательность, равноправие сторон); дифференциация процессуальной формы и стремление к упрощению судебных процедур. Эти общие черты, несомненно, могут способствовать дальнейшему сближению и гармонизации процессуального права стран ЕАЭС при условии дальнейшей тщательной проработки данного вопроса.
Ключевые слова: гражданское процессуальное права; гармонизация; сближение; Европейский союз; Евразийский экономический союз; альтернативные способы разрешения споров.
UDC 347
BISAC LAW012000 LAW / Civil Procedure
DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I N THE EUROPEAN UNION AND WITHIN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE
KONSTANTIN L. BRANOVITSKY, Ural State Law University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
ANASTASIIA I. BESSONOVA, Ural State Law University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)
Introduction: one of the most important indicators of world economy globalization is tendency to integration, which is reflected also in creation of economic integration organizations. Nevertheless, contracting states of the integration organizations face both external (cooperation with other states and economic integration organizations) and internal (strengthening and development of cooperation between contracting states, enhancement of integration level, approximation of legal systems) challenges. This tendency is typical also for post-soviet states. This article is an attempt to follow the process of integration of civil procedural law within European Union and to understand, whether it is possible to harmonize procedural law within the Eurasian economic union.
Methods: Harmonization and approximation of the EU civil procedure is considered through analysis of provisions of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions «The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 - Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union» from 11 March 2014 (Communication) and European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the European Union (2015/2084(INL). The future possibility of approximation and harmonization of civil procedure law within post-soviet territory is based on the comparative analysis of European integration and Eurasian integration.
Analysis: the article is devoted to the current development of civil procedural law within the European Union and minimal standards of civil procedure developed by European Commission. Integration within the Eurasian territory is considered through comparison with European integration. Finally, the article develops preconditions of future approximation and harmonization of the civil procedure within the territory of Eurasian economic union.
Results: though there are no obvious steps towards harmonization and approximation of the civil procedural law within the Eurasian territory, the similarity of the legal systems of the post-soviet states is a strong base for the approximation of civil procedural law within the EAEU frames. The main preconditions for approximation and harmonization are the following. Court and other participants are strictly bound by the procedural law; there are common principles of civil procedure (rule of law, optionality, adversarial procedure, equal rights of the parties); differentiation of procedural regulation and endeavor to simplify the procedure.
Key words: civil procedure; harmonization; European civil procedure; alternative dispute settlement; integration; Eurasian economic union
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important indicators of world economy globalization is tendency to integration, which is reflected also in creation of economic integration organizations. Since 1951 economic integration in Western Europe has begun, since 1967 countries of South-Eastern Asia have been cooperating in the frame of ASEAN, in 1988 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in American continent, in 1989 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) has appeared, since 1991 economic integration in South America in the frame of MERCOSUR has developed, today one can see a tendency to the concluding of mega trade agreements.
Nevertheless, contracting states of all these integration organizations face both external (cooperation with other states and economic integration organizations) and internal (strengthening and development of cooperation between contracting states, enhancement of integration level, approximation of legal systems) challenges.
This tendency is typical also for post-soviet states. The most intensive processes in this sphere were in the end of XX century, when within the territory of former USSR many economic unions have appeared: the CIS, the United State of Belarus and Russia, the Single Economic Space, the Organization of Central Asian Cooperation (OCAC), The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC), The Eurasian Customs Union (EACU), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
It is important to notice that intensification of integration processes within the frames of postsoviet space, on the one hand, is the part of economic development policy, which is oriented to distribution of natural resources. On the other hand, the reason for integration is long-lasting relationship between the states. Their economies partly enrich each other, close connections exist also in the sphere of cultural and legal cooperation.
This Article addresses also other debatable issues in the sphere of civil procedure in the post-soviet countries. For example, competition between state courts and means of alternative dispute resolution, specialization of disputes and judges, simplification of the civil procedure, etc.
GENERAL TENDENCIES IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
Before diving into problems of harmonization and approximation of the civil procedural law it is necessary to point out some general tendencies.
The first one is competition between judicial and alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution. The general prerequisite of increasing the role of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is modern social and technical community development, which demands innovations, flexibility and specialization. Heavy judicial workload and, consequently, long terms of considering cases are also the reasons why ADR is attractive [Mayern 2013: 268].
Besides, there is a tendency to further specialization and sophistication of the disputes in many countries. For example, in Germany there are more than 20 specializations of lawyers. Such tendency in Russia is a challenge for judges and courts. If they will not have specialization in the future, it may lead to the decreasing of trust to the judicial system. Even today it is obligatory in many litigations to have lawyers for both sides and sometimes a specialist is required, who clarifies circumstances to the court, which should be proved. In this situation a judge is a hostage of the jurisdictional rules and cannot choose cases.
In addition, attention should be paid to the modern requirements to the civil procedure differentiation in state courts. The same procedure for claiming damages in the size of 500 RUB and 2 billion RUB seems to be inappropriate. One of the possible indicator of nearest changes in this sphere is vast promotion of special procedure for consumer protection (see Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and EU Regulation No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes).
Meanwhile, alternative dispute resolution and mediation are also not the panacea, as they require time and patience. These mechanisms of dispute settlement are not suitable for typical (mass) cases or cases, where complicated issues of law are considered. Mediation is at the top of discussion in many countries, however number of cases settled through mediation does not tend to rise [Van Lijden 2016].
Number of disputes settled through arbitration does not also increase. Possible reasons are huge costs for the parties, which shall pay both
arbitrators and lawyers. The time taking to resolve a dispute is also sometimes a disadvantage (Toll Collect case on introduction of truck toll is considering by arbitral tribunal since 2004 and there are still no perspectives for final award in the nearest future [Becker 2016].
CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AT THE CURRENT STAGE
In the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions «The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 - Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union» from 11 March 2014 (Communication) some conclusions were made and some priorities were defined in the sphere of justice.
The basis of cooperation development in the justice area is Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on Functioning of European Union from 7 February 1992), Treaty of Amsterdam (Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts from 2 October 1997) and Treaty of Nice (Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts from 26 February 2001). According to the paragraph 2 of the Communication, before 2009 justice cooperation was more general in distinction from other areas. The process of development was regulated primarily by five-year detailed programmes (Tampere programme (1999-2004), Hague programme (2005-2009), Stockholm programme (2010-2014)), which were adopted by the European Council.
When the Treaty of Lisbon (Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) was signed the European Parliament also started to work in this direction. As a consequence, all restrictions of European Commission and European Court powers to supervise breaches of basic EU treaties during transit period (till 1.12.2014) were removed. From that moment joint work of EU Member States and justice cooperation were transferred to the European Commission powers.
According to the p. 3 of the Communication of the European Commission, there are four basic provisions in the justice area cooperation in the EU.
Enhancing mutual trust. EU justice policy has sought to develop a European area of justice based on mutual recognition and mutual trust within the EU space. The latter is the link between the different justice systems of the EU Member States.
Further enhancing of trust may be reached through integration of civil procedure. At current stage much attention is paid to service of proceedings (Assises de la Justice. Diskussion-paper 1: EU-Zivilrecjt. 21-22 November 2013. S. 3), but the regulation of service of proceedings is limited to guarantees of effectivity. Meanwhile, the EU does not regulate issues of circumstances, by which a judicial summons considered to be delivered (service presumption) and legal consequences of delivery.
Contributing to economic growth. After some political and financial crises in a raw in some EU Member States development of cooperation was used also as instrument of maintenance of economic growth during structural reformation. This topic was highly discussed at the elections of Spanish President in 2010 and of Irish President in 2013.
The EU made hard efforts to persuade businesses and consumers that single market of goods, labor and services can work like domestic market. One of the key factors in this process is reducing of bureaucratic hurdles and expenses, that in the civil procedure means primarily recognition and enforcement of a judgement given in any Member State within EU territory without intermediary procedures.
Moreover, improving of independence and quality of justice are also considered as part of the programme.
Making justice simple for citizens. In accordance with p. 4 of the Communication Cooperation in the justice area guarantees to citizens of EU Members full use of their right to move, to buy goods and services, and to live in another Member State. In this regard simplification of regulation was made in the process of cross border successions and divorces (abolition of outdated rubber-stamping formalities such as the Apostille or certified translations between Member States).
Protecting fundamental rights. In this sphere the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) was enacted and entered into a force.
On the p. 6 of the Communication the methods of development further cooperation in the justice area were defined, in order to build fully functional European legal space. These methods are consolidating, codifying and complementing. It is also noticed that their use shall not contradict to legal traditions in the EU Member States.
Consolidating. On the on hand, consolidating means maintenance and promotion of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the other hand, guarantee of effective remedy in the case of breach of the Charter. In the latter case the article 47 of the Charter is applicable, which ensures the right to an effective remedy to everyone, whose rights and freedoms were violated in accordance with EU law.
On the p.6 of the Communication it is said that to further facilitate the rapid resolution of disputes, Member States should promote the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation, online dispute resolution, the European Small Claims Procedure and the European Account Preservation Order, entered into force on 17 January 2017.
Lawyers have to know a huge volumes of EU laws and to apply them correctly. That is why constant training of legal practitioners (judges, prosecutors, lawyers and bailiffs) is of a high importance. In 2011-2012 more than 130 thousand of legal practitioners received training in the EU. The EU should help reach the objective of training 50% of lawyers by 2020. According to the Justice financial programme 35% of the programme's overall budget of 378 million EUR will support high-quality European training projects for all justice professions (EC Communication. P. 7).
The result of this training is not only enhancing of the quality of implementation, but also building trust of the citizens to the judicial system and EU law, and to each other.
Consolidating covers also further development of modern information technologies. Currently there is European justice portal (www.e-justice. eu), which contains business (The register is functioning from 8 June 2017), land, insolvency registers and detailed information about EU documents, possible types of court proceedings with
templates and case law so far. The system proposes to choose a State, type of claim and level of a court. After that it proposes court in proper jurisdiction with all contact data.
Codifying. Codifying of the EU law in the sphere of civil, trade, consumer and criminal law will enhance mutual trust and legal certainty, simplify procedures and cut red tape (EC Communication. P. 9.). In some cases codifying covers not only EU legislation, but also EU case-law. There are also some suggestions regarding codifying of procedural legislation in academic community (Assises de la Justice. Diskussionpaper 1: EU-Zivilrecht. 21-22 November 2013. S. 3.).
APPROXIMATION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BETWEEN EU MEMBER STATES THROUGH MINIMUM STANDARDS
General guidelines of harmonization. Back in the 1990 European Commission asked the group of experts to develop the EU civil procedure code. In 1994 experts made final report and proposed approximation in certain spheres where it was possible [Andersson 2003]. However, the results of their work were discussed primarily in academic circles, because of the absence of official mandate of the European Commission [Roth 1996: 271; Schilken 1996: 315]. These results were partly used later in secondary law (for example in Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure).
In other words, there is no single European procedure so far. But there are some directions where approximation is going.
The first one is extensive EU Court case law, including court assessment of the cases on realization of EU rights and freedoms in domestic courts of EU Member States. The subject of EU Court assessment is particular rules in national legislations regarding length of procedure, interim measures, proofs and other procedural features of different legal systems, that hampered effective remedy in the EU.
The second guideline is EU secondary law in the sphere of civil procedure on the base of article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union (TFEU), which regulates particular procedural issues both in transnational and national aspects.
Nevertheless, statistics says that there are a few cases within EU between parties from different EU Member States. In accordance with data of Germany Ministry of statistics in 2015 only 1,8 % of plaintiffs and 1,9 % of defendants in civil procedure at the land courts were EU citizens outside Germany.
Such a low number of cases with foreign element indicates that there are some difficulties regarding unknown legal system, language complications, searching for a lawyer, etc., that hold parties from participation in foreign civil procedure.
Adoption of minimum standards (European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the European Union (2015/2084(INL). The necessity of development of minimum standards firstly was declared at the high official level on pages 4, 9, 24 of Stockholm programme (2010-2014). In 2013 the standards had to be developed, but they did not. The minimum standards were intended to stipulate basic principles of civil procedure with necessary regulating rules, create opportunity to mutual penetration of civil procedures of EU Member States and build trust between EU Members.
Later the issue of minimum standards in civil procedure again was subject to a heated discussion both in the EU Parliament [Die Europäisierung des Zivilverfahrens - Auf dem Weg zu gemeinsamen Mindestnormen 2015] and academic publications [Mindeststandards im europäischen Zivilprozess, 2015; Radev 2016].
On 11th of February 2017 European Parliament presented the project of resolution to the European Commission with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure and on 7th of July 2017 the text of the resolution was adopted. The resolution suggests to European Parliament and European Council to adopt a Directive on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU (Directive), based on the article 81(2) of the TFEU.
The contributors of the resolution suppose that adoption of minimal standards helps both to approximate civil procedure systems of the EU Members and to develop them. The minimum standards give to the national legislature some flexibility, nevertheless they shall be guidelines, which points development direction. Meanwhile,
the minimum standards are not aimed to substitute national standards and principles of civil procedure, as they cover only civil cases, where the EU law is applicable.
Article 2 (1) of the Directive limits the scope of the Directive to disputes having cross-border implications, civil and commercial matters. It shall not extend to tax, customs or administrative matters.
Basic minimum standards (the most important procedural provisions, which should be stipulated in the legislature of every EU Member State) are divided into four groups:
Fair and effective outcomes;
Efficiency of proceedings;
Access to courts and justice;
Fairness of proceedings.
Fair and effective outcomes means general commitment of EU Member States to ensure the enforcement of the rights conferred by Union law (article 4 of the Directive). Procedures, trial and review in case of rights and freedoms violation shall be effective, fair and not costly.
Moreover, Member States shall provide for attendance of the parties and other participants, even if it requires to use distance communication technology (article 5 of the Directive). The procedure of videoconferencing is regulated by articles 10, 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001.
Fair and effective outcomes are reflected also in the regulation of provisional measures (article 6 of the Directive). The article contains conditions of the provisional measures (possibility to enforce later decision, prevention of any imminent infringement), option of taking a measure without the defendant having been heard (if there are enough evidence and the threaten of harm is reasonable), guarantees of prevention of harm and reimbursement to defendant.
Efficiency of proceedings is procedural efficiency (article 7 of the Directive) in the light of necessity of oral hearings and the means of taking evidence and the extent to which evidence is to be taken. Besides, EU Member States courts shall act as early as possible irrespective of the existence of prescription periods for specific actions in the different phases of the procedure.
Elements of this group of guarantees are also reasoning of court decision and its delivering within a reasonable time in order to enable par-
ties to make effective use of any right to review the decision or lodge an appeal (article 8 of the Directive).
Direction of proceedings (article 9 of the Directive) intends active role of the court in defining fair, efficient disposition of disputes and reasonable speed of their resolution. In the same time court shall direct proceedings consulting with the parties in reasonable limits.
Interesting point in the Directive is provision regarding expert advice. In accordance with article 11 (2) of the Directive, EU Member States shall ensure that the court (if it is necessary for proper dispute resolution) may appoint court expert from any EU Member State and interact with him without any governmental body's permission. The European Commission shall make a list of experts, where national lists will be united, and place the information on the European justice portal (www.e-justice.eu).
In the frames of guarantees «Access to courts and justice» EU Member States shall ensure that court may propose to the parties at any stage of procedure to settle a dispute through a mediation procedure (article 12 of the Directive). Meanwhile, mediation procedure (in the case of no result) does not prevent parties to initiate judicial proceedings, even if the limitation period has expired.
EU Member States shall also use single approach to the litigation costs. The size of the court fees charged in Member States shall be proportional to the value of the claim and shall not discourage citizens from bringing a case before a court or hinder in any way access to justice (article 13 of the Directive). The payment may be made by means of distance payment methods (via bank transfer or via credit or debit card payment) and information about the size of court fee shall be published on the E-justice portal.
Article 14 of the Directive suggests to set single mechanism of legal costs (including but not limited to any costs resulting from the fact that the other party was represented by a lawyer or another legal professional, or any costs arising from the service or translation of documents) distribution, which is «Loser pays» principle. Where a party succeeds only in part or in exceptional circumstances, EU Member State courts
may order that costs be apportioned equitably or that the parties bear their own costs.
According to article 14 (3) of the Directive «a party shall bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the court or another party, either by raising unnecessary issues or by being otherwise unreasonably disputatious».
In addition, the court may make the party to bear costs if it demonstrated unreasonable failure to cooperate or bad-faith participation (article 14 (4) of the Directive).
One of the elements of this group is possibility of funding of court proceedings by third party. EU Member States shall ensure that party, who is funding the court proceedings, shall not influence procedural decisions of the claimant party (including on settlements); provide financing for an action against a defendant who is a competitor of the fund provider or against a defendant on whom the fund provider is dependent; charge excessive interest on the funds provided.
There is a market of such financial services in Germany from 1998. Some companies (Foris, Juratec, DAS Profi, Proxx, Gloria Prozessfinanzierung) suggest process funding after prior check of matters and solvency of defendant and signing the contract with a client. As a rule, there are some limitations on minimum size of claim - from 50 000 Euro and the share of a fee may reach 50 % of money awarded [Geißler 2002].
In the frames of group of minimal standards «Fairness of proceedings» the issues of service of proceedings (article 17), the right to a lawyer (article 18), the right to access to information (article 19), obligation of the parties to act in good faith (article 20), public proceedings (article 22) and judicial independence and impartiality (article 23) are regulated.
The documents instituting the proceedings or any summons to a court hearing shall be served by personal service, postal service or service by electronic means. Regardless of chosen delivery method, the service is considered to be delivered only if there is a proof that addressee got a summons.
If service through previous methods is impossible and where the defendant's address is known with certainty, the Directive allows use the following means:
service in person at the defendant's personal address, on persons who are living in the same household as the defendant;
personal service at the defendant's business premises, on persons who are employed by the defendant;
deposit of the documents in the defendant's mailbox;
deposit of the documents at a post office or with competent public authorities and the placing in the defendant's mailbox of written notification of that deposit, provided that the written notification clearly states the character of the documents as being court documents or the legal effect of the notification as effecting service and setting in motion the running of time for the purposes of time limits;
postal service without proof where the defendant's address is in the Member State of origin;
electronic means attested by an automatic advice of delivery, provided that the defendant has expressly accepted this method of service in advance.
The sphere of recognition and enforcement is traditionally considered as complicated and requires high attention. Trust to the EU legal system depends on final results of proceedings (including enforcement proceedings), whether it is coercive debt recovery or transferring of a child. Minimum standards in the sphere of enforcement proceedings at the EU level could make protection of rights more effective (for example, by temporary freezing of all debt's assets or by providing for transparency of all debt's assets).
ESTABLISHMENT OF EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION AND INTEGRATION
When in May 2014 Heads of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the Treaty on Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which entered into a force on 1st of January 2015, the further direction of development of Eurasian integration was defined.
The following aims of integration were declaimed: freedom of movement and employment within the territory of these three countries, freedom of services and capital flows, coordination in area of energy, agriculture, transport and industry. Declared purposes require cooperation in macro-
economic policy with further transferring of functions to international level.
Even currently the EAEU has some features of economic integrational organization. These are single custom territory and custom policy, permanent body - the Eurasian economic commission, international capacity (the EAEU is registered as legal entity), permanent Court of the EAEU. 25 of May 2015 the first Free Trade Agreement of the EAEU with Vietnam was signed.
INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC MECHANISMS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPROXIMATION WITHIN EURASIAN SPACE: KEY DIRECTIONS AND INSTITUTIONS
It is necessary to notice that legal development in the EAEU primarily repeats the EU experience. It may be seen from the purposes of the EAEU. They were development of economic cooperation and effective promotion of the creation of Custom Union and single economic area. This project did not cover first period of integration within the post-soviet territory 1991-2000: establishing of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1991; Treaty on Economic Union in 1993; Treaty on Free Trade Agreement 1994. The major part of academics considers that CIS (which literally stipulated USSR collapse) was not an integration, but separation and reached its main purpose, namely USSR disintegration. The development of the CIS Model procedural code was very important but not successful effort to harmonize and unify procedural law of the CIS Member States.
The necessity of approximation and harmonization was mentioned in the Declaration of Heads of States on creation of the Eurasian Economic Community from 10.10.200 N 79. Declaration on Eurasian Economic Integration 2011, which was the base stage of signing of the EAEU Treaty also names approximation and harmonization of national legislation as the most important direction in integration development.
In the EAEU Treaty there is a definition for the term «harmonization» and its basic directions are claimed (turnover of medicines, technical regulations, financial markets and natural monopolies, transport rules, public procurements, etc.). Civil procedure, however, is not on the list.
Though the level of integration during this short period is rather high, interaction between the EAEU Member States in the area of civil procedure is limited to several treaties (Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters 1993, which was concluded within CIS framework and regulates issues of jurisdiction, service of proceedings, legal aid, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions; Agreement on settling disputes relating to business 1992; Agreement on mutual enforcement of commercial, business and economic courts' decisions of CIS Member States 1998, concluded within the CIS framework and govern issues of domestic courts' jurisdiction in business sphere, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions; Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters 2002. However, it is hardly may be called «cooperation», as these treaties were signed long before the EAEU establishment and beyond its frames.
PRECONDITIONS OF HARMONIZATION OF THE EAEU PROCEDURAL LAW
Basis for harmonization in the sphere of procedural law is similarity of civil procedure systems of Member States [Yarkov 2012: 397-429], which is reflected in the following provisions:
Court and other participants are strictly bound by the procedural law;
Common principles of civil procedure (rule of law, optionality, adversarial procedure, equal rights of the parties)
Differentiation of procedural regulation and endeavor to simplify the procedure.
These common features undoubtedly could promote further harmonization of the EAEU procedural law.
CONCLUSION
Development of minimal standards and EU secondary law in the sphere of civil procedure indicates continued interest to the approximation of civil procedure within the EU framework. Moreover, the contributors of the Directive aim to further development of the EU civil procedure code.
Nevertheless, the issue of relationship between minimum standards and standards of European Court of Human Rights, developed in case law on article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair court proceedings), requires a detailed analysis.
During the long process of interpretation of article 6, the ECHR has developed a lot of procedural guarantees (standards), which not only not classified, but also have a different interpretation in various legal systems.
It is not also absolute clear how do minimum standards correlate with guarantees set in article 47 of the EU Charter and with UNIDROIT principles of international civil procedure 2004.
Though there are no obvious steps towards harmonization and approximation of the civil procedural law within the Eurasian territory, the similarity of the legal systems of the post-soviet states is a strong base for the approximation of civil procedural law within the EAEU frames. The main preconditions for approximation and harmonization are the following. Court and other participants are strictly bound by the procedural law; there are common principles of civil procedure (rule of law, optionality, adversarial procedure, equal rights of the parties); differentiation of procedural regulation and endeavor to simplify the procedure.
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
Евразийский гражданский процесс: к 25-летию стран СНГ и Балтии / под ред. Д.Я. Малешина. М., 2015.
Ярков В. В. Гармонизация гражданского процессуального права в странах Евразии сквозь призму развития гражданского судопроизводства на постсоветском пространстве // Гражданский процесс в межкультурном диалоге: Евразийский контекст: Всемирная конференция Международной ассоциации процессуального права (18-21 сентября 2012 г., Москва): сб. док. / под ред. Д.Я. Малешина. М., 2012. С. 397-429.
Andersson T. Approximation of Procedural Laws in Europe // Procedural Laws in Europe / ed. by M. Storme. Antwerpen: Apeldoorn, 2003.
Becker S. Kosten für Dauerstreit um Lkw-Maut explodieren // URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/lkw-maut-kosten-fuer-schiedsverfahren-explodieren-a-1087972.html (дата обращения: 23.04.2018).
Die Europäisierung des Zivilverfahrens - Auf dem Weg zu gemeinsamen Mindestnormen? // URL: http://www.euro-parl.europa.eu/thinktank/de/document.html?reference=EPRSJDA°/o282015°/o29559499 (дата обращения: 23.04.2018)
Geißler C. Wer dabei hilft, einen kostspieligen Rechtsstreit zu finanzieren - Rechtsschutz Kosten kappen // URL: https:// www.focus.de/finanzen/steuern/wer-dabei-hilft-einen-kostspieligen-rechtsstreit-zu-finanzieren-und150-rechtsschutz-kosten-kappen_aid_244909.html (дата обращения: 23.04.2018).
Mayen T. Sind ZPO und GVG noch zeitgemäß? // Anwaltsblatt. 2013. Nr. 4. S. 268.
Mindeststandards im europäischen Zivilprozess / ed. by M. Weller, Ch. Althammer. Heidelberg, 2015.
Radev E. Entwicklung gemeinsamer Mindeststandards des Zivilverfahrens in der Europäischen Union - Rechtsgrundlage // URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/C0MMITTEES/JURI/DT/2016/01-28/1079599DE. pdf (дата обращения: 23.04.2018)
Roth H. Die Vorschläge der Kommission für ein europäisches Zivilprozessgesetzbuch // ZZP. 1996. Bd. 109. S. 271.
Schilken E. Die Vorschläge der Kommission für ein europäisches Zivilprozessgesetzbuch - einstweiliger und summarischer Rechtsschutz und Vollstreckung // ZZP. 1996. Bd. 109. S. 315.
Van Lijnden C.B. Hohe Bereitschaft, niedrige Fallzahlen // URL: http://www.lto.de/recht/job-karriere/j/mediation-gesetz-anwaelte-mandante-studie (дата обращения: 23.04.2018).
REFERENCES
Andersson T. Approximation of Procedural Laws in Europe, Storme M. (ed.) Procedural Laws in Europe, Antwerpen, Apeldoorn, 2003, pp. 55-65.
Becker S. Kosten für Dauerstreit um Lkw-Maut explodieren [Cost of long-term dispute to truck toll explode], available at: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/lkw-maut-kosten-fuer-schiedsverfahren-explodieren-a-1087972.html (accessed: 23.04.2018).
Die Europäisierung des Zivilverfahrens - Auf dem Weg zu gemeinsamen Mindestnormen? [The Europeanization of civil proceedings - towards common minimum standards?], available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/de/document. html?reference=EPRSJDA%282015°/o29559499 (accessed: 23.04.2018).
Geißler C. Wer dabei hilft, einen kostspieligen Rechtsstreit zu finanzieren - Rechtsschutz Kosten kappen [Who helps to finance a costly lawsuit - legal costs cut], available at: https://www.focus.de/finanzen/steuern/wer-dabei-hilft-einen-kost-spieligen-rechtsstreit-zu-finanzieren-und150-rechtsschutz-kosten-kappen_aid_244909.html (accessed: 23.04.2018).
Maleshin D. Ya. (ed.) Evraziiskii grazhdanskii protsess: k 25-letiyu stran SNG i Baltii [Eurasian civil justice: the 25th anniversary of the Baltic and CIS countries], Moscow, Statut, 2015, 448 p.
Mayen T. Sind ZPO und GVG noch zeitgemäß? [Are ZPO and GVG still up-to-date?], Anwaltsblatt, 2013, no. 4, p. 268.
Radev E. Entwicklung gemeinsamer Mindeststandards des Zivilverfahrens in der Europäischen Union - Rechtsgrundlage [Development of common minimum standards of civil procedure in the European Union - legal basis], available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/C0MMITTEES/JURI/DT/2016/01-28/1079599DE.pdf (accessed: 23.04.2018).
Roth H. Die Vorschläge der Kommission für ein europäisches Zivilprozessgesetzbuch [Commission proposals for a European Code of Civil Procedure], ZZP, 1996, vol. 109, p. 271.
Schilken E. Die Vorschläge der Kommission für ein europäisches Zivilprozessgesetzbuch - einstweiliger und summarischer Rechtsschutz und Vollstreckung [Commission proposals for a European Code of Civil Procedure - interim and summary legal protection and enforcement], ZZP, 1996, vol. 109, p. 315.
Van Lijnden C.B. Hohe Bereitschaft, niedrige Fallzahlen [High readiness, low case numbers], available at: http://www.lto. de/recht/job-karriere/j/mediation-gesetz-anwaelte-mandante-studie (accessed: 23.04.2018).
Weller M., Althammer Ch. (ed.) Mindeststandards im europäischen Zivilprozess [Minimum Standards in the European Civil Process], Heidelberg, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, 325 p.
Yarkov V. V. Garmonizatsiya grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo prava v stranakh Evrazii skvoz' prizmu razvitiya grazh-danskogo sudoproizvodstva na postsovetskom prostranstve [Harmonization of civil procedure in eurasian countries through the lens of civil procedure development within the post-soviet space]. Maleshin D. Ya. (ed.) Grazhdanskii protsess v mezhkul'turnom dialoge: Evraziiskii kontekst: Vsemirnaya konferentsiya Mezhdunarodnoi assotsiatsii protsessual'nogo prava: sb. dok. [Civil procedure in intercultural dialogue: Eurasian context: Global conference of International Law Association: research papers], Moscow, Statut, 2012, pp. 397-429.
ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Константин Леонидович Брановицкий - кандидат юридических наук, магистр права, доцент кафедры гражданского процесса Уральского государственного юридического университета (ул. Комсомольская, д. 21, Екатеринбург, Россия 620137; e-mail: [email protected])
Анастасия Игоревна Бессонова - кандидат юридических наук, магистр права, ассистент кафедры гражданского процесса Уральского государственного юридического университета (ул. Комсомольская, д. 21, Екатеринбург, Россия 620137; e-mail: [email protected])
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Konstantin L. Branovitsky - candidate of juridical sciences, LL.M., associate professor of the civil procedure chair, Ural State Law University (21 Komsomolskaya St., Yekaterinburg, 620137, Russia; e-mail: branovitsky@ mail.ru)
Anastasiia I. Bessonova - candidate of juridical sciences, LL.M., assistant of the civil procedure chair, Ural State Law University (21 Komsomolskaya St., Yekaterinburg, 620137, Russia; e-mail: bessonova92@ yandex.ru)
Дата поступления в редакцию / Received: 23.04.2018
Дата принятия решения об опубликовании / Accepted: 16.05.2018
© К. Л. Брановицкий, 2018 © А. И. Бессонова, 2018
