Abstract
The yearning for a more adequate, speedy and effective judicial process has driven legal systems all around the world to rethink its rules and practices. Among the attempts of improval, case management consolidated itself in several jurisdictions as a tool to improve efficiency in civil procedure. And in many ways it has proven to be effective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Jeuland (2017, pp. 7–8).
- 2.
Many authors still depict the judge as a passive umpire or a detached decisionmaker, but the increasing discretion related to case management powers show that the judge becomes more and more another ‘strategic player in the litigation game,’ as Bone highlights: Bone (2007, pp. 1996–1997).
- 3.
- 4.
Ferejohn (1999, pp. 353–384).
- 5.
Mainly in the USA, but also in England since the reforms resulting from the Woolf Report. See Flood et al. (2007, p. 143). The full content of Woolf’s final report can be seen in: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/final/contents.htm. Judicial powers are exemplified in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In legal literature, Clarke (2009, pp. 33–49). In the United States of America, there was no provision in statutory law, but the constant concerns of legal scholars and of the Judiciary with economic aspects led to a progressive acceptance of judges’ procedural management powers, always with regard to greater efficiency of the results. See Resnik (1982, pp. 374 ff, 419–431), Marcus (2008, pp. 2274–2275). In Brazil, Gajardoni (2008a, b, pp. 162ff), Ono (2016, p. 3).
- 6.
According to Van Rhee, ‘(1) The specific nature of the case should determine to a large extent the rules, directions and orders that govern the proceedings; (2) The rules, directions and orders of proceedings should to a large extent be determined by the judges, parties and attorneys involved in the case and not by detailed legal provisions; (3) The court should have the necessary procedural discretionary powers to manage the case; (4) The court’s direction should be discretion in the weak sense, that is to say, the court should use its powers for a specific goal, i.e., to achieve the disposition of the dispute fairly, efficiently, and with reasonable speed.’ Van Rhee (2008a, b, pp. 3–4). About the subject, Andrews (2003, p. 333), Sorabji (2017, pp. 1ff), Resnik (1986, pp. 524, 534–535 (with strong criticism)), Dodge (2014, p. 333), Almeida (2011, p. 289), Barbosa Moreira (2001, pp. 185–186), Amendoeira (2006, p. 55), Cabral (2010a, b, pp. 150–153).
- 7.
- 8.
In the USA, professional court administration began soon in the first half of the twentieth century, enabled by the broad normative power of the judiciary to regulate its own activities, even in many aspects of its budget. Congress holds a sort of ‘veto power’ by producing statutes that revoke provisions of the courts. An interesting approach of the US system in a civil law perspective can be found in Röhl (1998, pp. 243–244).
- 9.
- 10.
Bone (2007, p. 1968).
- 11.
If no other evidence is needed, the Code of Civil Procedure grants the judge the power to decide the case on the merits (whether totally or partially) by summary judgments, i.e., without a trial hearing or taking of testimonial or expert evidence (Arts. 354 and 356). In Brazilian legal literature, see Marinoni et al. (2015a, b, p. 47), Gajardoni et al. (2015, p. 72). Didier (2001). Didier Jr. speaks of a ‘jurisdictional adaptation of the procedure.’ Didier (2016, p. 119), giving other examples of normative provisions that reinforce the normative basis of this adaptability. In the same sense, Bedaque (2006, pp. 63ff, 109–112), Oliveira (2013), Cabral (2010a, b, p. 63). This principle of adaptability is provided for in the Portuguese Civil Procedure Law for quite some time, allowing the judge a more flexible management of procedural formalities. This flexibility exists in Portugal since the previous Code of Civil Procedure (Art. 265.º-A (princípio da adequação formal): ‘Quando a tramitação processual prevista na lei não se adequar às especificidades da causa, deve o juiz oficiosamente, ouvidas as partes, determinar a prática dos actos que melhor se ajustem ao fim do processo, bem como as necessárias adaptações’), and the new Code of Civil Procedure from 2013 introduced an intense duty of judicial case management for the judge (Art. 6). In the Portuguese legal literature, Geraldes (2012, p. 93). In France and Norway one can note this progressive quest for flexibility in the last decades. See Cornu (1998, pp. 391–393), Valguarnera (2008, pp. 888, 891, 893–894).
- 12.
- 13.
Peckham (1981, pp. 770–773).
- 14.
Molot (2003, pp. 29ff).
- 15.
McGovern (1997, p. 1869).
- 16.
It’s important to remember that, even in the common law tradition, where a greater passivity of the judge could be seen in the past, the behavior and the role of the judge have been modified more recently in light of the cooperation principle.
- 17.
Machado Alves (2016, pp. 73, 76).
- 18.
Fix-Fierro (2003).
- 19.
Cabral (2017b, pp. 342–359).
- 20.
Cabral and Cunha (2016, pp. 471ff).
- 21.
- 22.
Jeuland (2017, p. 1).
- 23.
‘Court management’ may be an inaccurate term because this variant seeks to innovate not only within the judiciary itself, but also in institutions that are connected to the justice system, such as lawyers’ associations, public defenders’ services, the public prosecutor’s office, mediation and conciliation centres etc. Some scholars reported some misunderstanding over the expression. Jeuland (2017, pp. 10ff). See also Perez-Ragone (2017, pp. 16–17). The term brings some confusion in a comparative analysis of the Chinese speaking countries, which have different traditions (some influenced by civil law jurisdictions such as Portugal and Germany, some with English background). See Chan (2017, pp. 9ff), Wang (2017, p. 1).
- 24.
Resnik (1982, pp. 391, 413–414). The differences are not only in terms of purposes; according to Resnik, they are observed also in respect to initiative and effects: ‘In both, judges Interact informally with the litigating parties and receive information that would be considered inadmissible in traditional courtroom proceedings. Management at both ends of the lawsuit takes time and increases judges’ responsibilities. Nevertheless, the two management stages are dissimilar in many respects. Predecision management is initiated usually by the judge; postdecision supervision begins more often at a litigant’s request. Pretrial management occurs much more frequently, but posttrial intervention tends to be more far reaching in its effects. Unlike pretrial management, post-trial activity occurs within a framework of appellate oversight, public visibility, and institutional constraints that inhibits overreaching.’
- 25.
Resnik (1982, pp. 391, 413–414).
- 26.
Didier (2008, p. 41).
- 27.
- 28.
Resnik (1986, p. 523).
- 29.
Uzelac (2008, pp. 87–88).
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
Cabral (2016c, pp. 263–281).
- 33.
This is the tone of the procedural system proposed by Marinoni et al. (2015a, b, pp. 39ff). See also Sodan (2005, p. 766), De Cristofaro (2010, pp. 282–305). In a perspective that I consider outdated, Thomas Roth sees a contradiction between procedural effectiveness and the principle of the lawful judge, giving priority to fixed statutory rules of competence, understanding that the legislator decided that they were ‘more effective’ for certain sort of cases. Roth (2000, pp. 95–100).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
It is interesting to observe how judges’ independence is frequently invoked more as an individual right of the magistrate than from a systemic perspective of its relevance for the functioning of the judiciary. We must see the aspects of the lawful judge not only from a unique prism, but considering all the aspects in which the principle of the lawful judge actually protects individuals (control of arbitrariness, security, equality, impartiality, previsibility, coherence, efficiency). In this sense, Röhl (1998, pp. 245–246, 249).
- 37.
Eidenmüller (1995, pp. 320–321).
- 38.
Greco (2012, p. 24).
- 39.
Cunha (2014, p. 79).
- 40.
Pflughaupt (2011, p. 313).
- 41.
- 42.
Câmara (2013, pp. 42–43).
- 43.
Diez-Picazo Gimenez (1991, p. 116).
- 44.
Tatiana Alves remembers that a case management approach exclusively focused on the judge’s activity does not exhaust the subject. Machado Alves (2016, p. 84).
- 45.
- 46.
For example, among all general reporters, only Sorabji mentioned the subject. Sorabji (2017, pp. 62–63). In China, Wang reports that there is little space for the parties to convene on proceedings, for the judges tend to play a leading role in the definition of procedural rules. Wang (2017, pp. 20ff).
- 47.
Another aspect of the topic which has been little explored concerns the fact that these procedural agreements represent a rearrangement of the relationship between substantive law and procedural law. Litigation agreements can, indirectly, increase or reduce the costs of the implementation of rights, by rendering their enforcement more or less difficult; and they can establish a new evidentiary logic (burden of proof, evaluation of evidence, etc.), causing an impact on substantive law because they change the prognosis of spontaneous compliance with the rules. In the normal exchanges of any contract, an improvement in the procedural legal position of one party could represent an advantage gained by the opposing party in another point of the negotiations, e.g., in aspects of substantive law, such as a price reduction. A consumer could negotiate a lower price by agreeing to clauses that allow greater ‘seizability’ of her assets or easier attachment in execution proceedings. Therefore, it may not deal merely with the choice of more efficient procedures: the parties frequently agree on procedure against a backdrop of the expectation of the impact of those provisions on substantive law. And, mainly in contracts signed prior to the emergence of the dispute, contractually designing the future in-court proceedings may generate incentives for individual behaviour. By undertaking obligations and regulating procedure, the parties are indirectly delineating incentives that favour compliance with their legal obligations. This aspect of litigation agreements has been little studied (a fortunate exception is the interesting analysis carried out by Dodge (2011, pp. 727, 731–732, 739), but indicates that litigation agreements is not only a form of conventional case management, but also a means of reshaping or remodelling the interactions between procedure and substantive law.).
- 48.
The movement has started in the early 1980s. See Santos (1985, p. 125).
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
Costa (2016, p. 317).
- 53.
- 54.
In Germany, Röhl (1998).
- 55.
- 56.
Loth and De Werd (2003, p. 319).
- 57.
- 58.
Mäurer (2000, p. 68), Langbroek (2007, pp. 112–113). It is important to highlight that court management does not need to be carried out necessarily by the judiciary itself (judge-only). We could imagine commissions or committees formed by members of both the judiciary and parliament. In the traditional debate, judicial independence and judges’ accountability are values considered to be clashing values. Trying to tackle this issue, Contini and Mohr (2007, pp. 28, 39ff). About the relationship between judiciary budget and judges independence, Douglas and Hartley (2003, pp. 441–453), Baar (1999, pp. 399–351), Wheeler (1979, pp. 134–149).
- 59.
- 60.
- 61.
In similar sense, Uzelac (2014, p. 148).
- 62.
See different acceptances for the term specialisation in Baum (2009, pp. 1671–1675).
- 63.
- 64.
In some countries, as in Germany, there are lots of specialised courts. There is, in federal level, a common justice (civil and criminal) and other branches of administrative justice, a general (or residual) branch, the Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit, with subspecialisation in social security, tax and financial and labor. Lately, a court specialised in trademarks and patents was created (Bundespatentgericht). In France, there is specialisation based on concentration, with exclusivity, of commercial causes (tribunaux de commerce), and labor causes (conseils des prud’hommes). Foignet (1932, pp. 11–13), Perrot (2006, pp. 3–11, 123ff), Vincent and Guinchard (2003, pp. 330ff), Solus and Perro (1991, pp. 435ff), Couchez (2008, pp. 34ff), Héron and Le Bars (2006, pp. 499ff, 757–758). In Brazil, it’s common to question the maintenance of certain judiciary branches which are too expensive and maybe could be fused to other courts. The best example, without any doubt, is the Military Justice, which number of processes absolutely does not justify its existence.
- 65.
In Brazil, within State jurisdiction, the division of competences between the Tax, Civil, Family, and Commercial Courts is well known. Within the Federal jurisdiction, in the various circuits, there are specific courts for social security, environmental, agrarian, tax and tax foreclosure, intellectual property and trademark, home loan system matters, or matters regarding the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, among others.
- 66.
- 67.
Zimmer (2009, pp. 1–2).
- 68.
- 69.
- 70.
Baum (2009, pp. 1677ff).
- 71.
The term is used in economic law to refer to superspecialised organs’ characteristic of not tackling problems from a larger perspective.
- 72.
This is the discussion found in Oldfather (2012, pp. 848, 858ff, 871ff).
- 73.
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
Damle (2005, p. 1275).
- 77.
That is a problem that can become alarming in a continental-size country as Brazil, as already observed in Russia: Terekhova (2014, pp. 178–179).
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.
McGovern (1986, pp. 440ff).
- 81.
- 82.
- 83.
- 84.
- 85.
Kramer (2001, p. 3449).
- 86.
Harmonizing efficiency and fundamental guarantees of the parties is also a concern of Mak (2008, p. 4).
- 87.
Renoux (1993, p. 169).
- 88.
Loth and De Werd (2003, p. 318), Contini and Mohr (2007, p. 35), Langbroek (2007, p. 105). The described indicators and statistics show that this was a fruitful experience. Van Dijk (2014, pp. 10–12, 15). Information in English about the Dutch legal system in https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.
- 89.
Van Dijk (2014, p. 6).
- 90.
- 91.
Voet (2014, p. 137).
- 92.
Voet (2014, p. 140).
- 93.
Section 14 of the Crown Court Manual, p. 2, available in https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Protocols/listing_crown_court_manual_050705.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2020.
- 94.
Müssig (2009, pp. 377–379).
- 95.
Eser (1995, pp. 263–264).
- 96.
Didier (2008, p. 41).
- 97.
Greco (1999, p. 62).
- 98.
Pflughaupt (2011, p. 23).
- 99.
Mettenheim (1970, pp. 15–17). About the subject, Schumann (1973, p. 277). In page 279–280, he says: ‘Die Prozessökonomie ist (…) miβverstanden, wenn sie vom je einzelnen Prozeβ her begriffen wird. Prozeβökonomisch ist nur die Gestaltung, die sich mit den institutionellen Zielen des Prozesses verträgt. Manch Prozedieren mag im Einzelfall sehr ‘ökonomisch’ sein, bringt aber insgesamt nur Nachteile oder sogar den Prozeβ als Institution in Gefahr.’
- 100.
This point has already been noted by scholars of the so called ‘structural litigation,’ in procedures in which the judiciary, in order to provide appropriate relief, must engage in cooperative activities in partnership with many social and State players. About the subject, in Brazil, Arenhart (2015b, pp. 211ff), Ferraro (2015, pp. 56–61).
- 101.
Pflughaupt (2011, pp. 282, 291–294).
- 102.
- 103.
Theodoro (2011, p. 33). Some authors consider jurisdiction a ‘public service.’ In this sense, Redenti and Vellani (2000, pp. 138–139). This vision is usually followed by more prominent considerations about procedural efficiency. Remo Caponi affirms: ‘(…) Essa mudança de perspectiva – a Justiça de função estatal a serviço público – faz com que o sistema político seja chamado hoje, mais urgentemente do que no passado, a responder às expectativas de eficiência provenientes dos usuários do serviço judiciário e, portanto, a medir e a incentivar a sua qualidade, a sua produtividade etc. Essa perspectiva reage ainda com a própria elaboração e conformação dos princípios jurídicos do processo que tendem, hoje mais do que no passado, a extrair de seu bojo a visão de uma gestão eficiente, em que pese a escassez de recursos dedicados à Justiça. Um exemplo sobressai nesse campo: a inclusão na Itália da duração razoável do processo entre as garantias constitucionais (Art. 111, § 2.º, da Constituição) pode e deve representar de forma direta a constitucionalização do princípio da eficiência. (…).’ (Caponi 2011, pp. 400–401). This perspective is very frequent in French legal literature. Bandrac (2003, pp. 1096–1097). Cadiet and Jeuland say: ‘À côté des principes d’organisation, l’ordonnancement judiciaire comporte des principes de fonctionnement qui sont essentiellement fondés sur la notion de service public. Fonction étatique, la justice est, naturellement, un service public; elle l’est souvent dans les deux sens du terme, organique (l’institution) et matériel (l’activité) lorsque la fonction de juger est exercée par une juridiction étatique (…). Mais parce qu’elle est un service public, la justice doit fonctionner conformément aux principes communs à tous les services publics: la continuité et l’égalité.’ Cadiet and Jeuland (2013, p. 40). We do not think this idea to be essential to defend that the judge, while exercising his jurisdictional powers, should be guided by efficiency criteria.
- 104.
Jacobs (2011, p. 899).
- 105.
Van Rhee (2008a, b, pp. 58–59), Leisner (1995, p. 287), Bohn (2011, p. 16): ‘Gegen den ‘Perfektionismus’ des gesetzlichen Richters werden Argumente wie die Praktikabilität und Zweckmäβigkeit einer flexibleren Fallzuteilung bemüht. Ziel ist es, das bestehende Spannungsverhältnis zwischen formalisierter Fallzuteilung und effizienter, ermessensgebundener Fallzuteilung zu erörtern und kritisch zu würdigen.’
- 106.
Bruns (1964, p. 1887).
- 107.
Arndt (1959, p. 171).
- 108.
See the critical view of Jeuland (2011, p. 88). With some concessions to flexibility.
- 109.
Schulze-Fielitz (2008, p. 660).
- 110.
Gelsi Bidart (1958, p. 256).
- 111.
- 112.
The delegator judge does not loose jurisdiction. That is why one should reject Heinrich Triepel’s thesis that delegation would always be translative, and would lead to the loss of competence, through its exercise by the delegatee in her own name. Triepel (1942, pp. 23–24, 36–38, 41–42, 51). Supporting Obermayer (1956, p. 625). Against Triepel (1997, pp. 498–499).
- 113.
Triepel (1942, pp. 10–13), Heinz (1997, pp. 496–497), Chiovenda (1993, p. 79), Pérez López (2011, pp. 134ff). Some passages of Roman sources point to the same conclusion. Digest (book I, 21, ‘De officio eius, cui mandata est iurisdictio,’ or ‘The office to whom jurisdiction is delegated’), divided state powers that would be transmissible from those that could not; and admitted jurisdiction delegation ‘Quaecumque specialiter lege vel senatus consulto vel constitutione principum tribuuntur, mandata iurisdictione non transferuntur: quae vero iure magistratus competunt, mandari possunt.’
- 114.
The iudex pedaneus, to whom the practice of some procedural legal acts was delegated, could be pointed out as a similar type of delegation. See Tucci and Azevedo (2001, p. 140). The commentators and glossators used to draw a distinction between the delegation of competence for all cases (ad universitatem causarum) and the delegation restricted to one case (ad unam causam). Picardi (1985, pp. 766–767).
- 115.
- 116.
Van Bynkershoek (1737).
- 117.
- 118.
- 119.
- 120.
- 121.
- 122.
Yarkov and Abolonin (2010, p. 228).
- 123.
- 124.
- 125.
See Perez-Ragone (2014, pp. 648–649).
- 126.
Jellinek (1892, p. 238).
- 127.
- 128.
- 129.
Jellinek (1892, pp. 234, 238).
- 130.
Hess (2010, p. 44).
- 131.
In England and Wales, the experience with the High Court Enforcement Officers has been reported as an enormous success. See Turner (2010, pp. 137ff).
- 132.
Brazil (1986, pp. 394ff).
- 133.
That is what happens with the Dutch court bailiffs. See Jongbloed (2010, p. 181).
- 134.
Arenhart (2015a, p. 362).
- 135.
Arenhart (2015b, pp. 224–229).
- 136.
- 137.
- 138.
In Brazil, for instance, there is an express constitutional restriction: all jurisdictional legal acts but can be delegated to clerks or civil servants of the judiciary except decisions and sentences. See Art. 93, XIV of the Brazilian Constitution.
- 139.
Of course there would be cases in which no delegation could be implemented, especially if the competence would interfere with subject matters that can only be decided by judges (‘reserva de jurisdição,’ Richtervorbehalt). That varies a lot from country to country, but are usually linked to arrest, emprisonment, coercitive measures, etc. Cabral (2017c).
- 140.
- 141.
- 142.
Gelsi Bidart (1958, pp. 261–262).
- 143.
Pinho (2000, p. 13).
- 144.
Santos (2007, p. 72).
- 145.
- 146.
- 147.
- 148.
Gajardoni et al. (2015, p. 168).
- 149.
- 150.
Hesse (1995, p. 211): ‘Den damit gegebenen verschiedenartigen Erfordernissen der Aufgabenbewältigung entsprechend unterscheidet die Verfassung die drei Grundfunktionen der Gesetzgebung, der Vollziehung und der Rechtsprechung. Diese Unterscheidung hat keinen Ausschließlichkeitscharakter. Sie bezeichnet bestimmte Grundtypen der Art der Aufgabenerfüllung. Sie enthält keine abschließende Umschreibung der verfassungsmäßigen Funktionen, sondern läßt Raum für weitere wie etwa die der Kontrolle, der Mitwirkung der politischen Parteien bei der politischen Willensbildung oder der Bildung und des Wirkens der öffentlichen Meinung. Sie darf auch im Blick auf die einzelnen Funktionen nur in einem typisierenden Sinne verstanden warden, weil die sachgemäße Erfüllung der Aufgaben starre Grenzziehungen nicht zuläßt.’
- 151.
Cabral (2014, p. 564).
- 152.
Pinho (2000, pp. 11–13).
- 153.
Perez-Ragone (2017, p. 29).
- 154.
- 155.
- 156.
- 157.
In similar sense Rodotà (1985, p. 184).
- 158.
Brazil (1986, pp. 411, 417ff).
- 159.
- 160.
The idea is to foster relief for a larger number of people at once. Mcgovern (1983, pp. 5–9).
- 161.
Cabral (2017a).
- 162.
Aggregation in a broad sense occurs in any case in which more than one person or entity is a plaintiff or a defendant. Resnik (1991, p. 23). On the other hand, Yeazell (1989, p. 44), rejects such a wide approach because it would mask ‘an important distinction between voluntary joinder and involuntary participation,’ which brings questions regarding ‘free riders’ and ‘kidnapped’ participants.
- 163.
Resnik (1991, p. 37).
- 164.
And more and more, class actions, that in their origin, were seen as an empowerment, are starting to be looked at as a management tool as well. See Resnik (1991, pp. 47–48).
- 165.
Machado Alves (2016, p. 193).
- 166.
Voermans (2007, pp. 148–159).
- 167.
- 168.
- 169.
The topic is too broad to be dealt with here. In fact, there are new and diverse roles that can take part in a procedure, such as that of the amicus curiae, a non-interested third-party. Social participation in public hearings starts to come up more often, and the possibility of switching roles (in which the same player changes roles in the same claim, sometimes supporting the interests of the plaintiff, sometimes supporting the interests of the defendant). Cabral (2009, pp. 7ff).
- 170.
Some plaintiffs and defendants have already an aggregative form before they enter litigation. That is the case for corporations, voluntary associations and governamental units and bodies. See Resnik (1991, p. 23). Here I would like to emphasise the eventual gathering and the formation of structures just for the purposes of litigation.
- 171.
- 172.
Dodge (2014, p. 368).
- 173.
McGovern (1986, pp. 440ff).
- 174.
- 175.
Technology in case management has been reported in many countries. See Wang (2017, pp. 31ff).
- 176.
- 177.
Rothstein and Borden (2011, p. 8).
- 178.
In Brazil there were a few cases in which informative hotsites e websites were created on line, but this initiative is very recent. In criminal matters, see the Operation Car Wash (‘Operação Lava a Jato,’ the biggest corruption case in the world) website (http://lavajato.mpf.mp.br); in the field of class actions, a good example is the collective action of coal mines (‘Ação civil pública do carvão’) (https://www.jfsc.jus.br/acpdocarvao/index.php).
- 179.
The traditional opinion is expressed by Thiedemann (2003, p. 233).
- 180.
Gramckow and Walsh (2013, pp. 1ff).
- 181.
Guiliani (1988, pp. 603–604, note 15). Some say it resulted from the historical evolution of the principle of the lawful judge (the process that led to ‘permanent’ courts becoming ‘established’ or ‘natural’ or ‘ordinary’ courts gave rise to a ‘career’ of the judge). Picardi (1985, p. 781). There is a concern of the magistracy with seeing this ‘profissionalisation’ as a ‘functional improvement,’ not as a loss of power, a bureaucratization of the judges that would bring them next to the other public servants, what could reduce their function in the frame of State’s institutional arrangements, sterilising the judiciary in a political sense. About this subject, Giuliani and Picardi (1987, pp. 272, 283).
- 182.
In Brazil, professional career judges are selected by means of public civil service exams, which already focus the assessment of candidates on the content deemed useful for the performance of their judicial functions.
- 183.
Nunes and Bahia suggest training of judges should precede statutory reforms. Nunes and Bahia (2009, pp. 121–122).
- 184.
- 185.
In some countries like The Netherlands, efficiency turned to be an objective due to budgetary constraints. Van der Grinten (2012, pp. 279, 285ff).
- 186.
Oldfather (2012, pp. 854ff). Specialisation is a very difficult subject, and it may vary according to the comprehension that one has of the principle of the lawful judge, which varies in comparative law depending on the characteristics of each judicary system. In some countries for example, there is no court specialisation: all judges are generalists and are part of the same judicial body, being capable of adjudicating in various branches. It is not surprising that, in those systems, the notion of a lawful judge is totally different from that existent in Brazil. Fabri and Langbroek (2007, pp. 300–301).
- 187.
Of course that, although specialisation is an important element to provide functionality and efficiency to the system, specialisation itself is not enough to reach a correct decision and an efficient result. Technical knowledge is not the only relevant predicate to the task of judging: abilities such as analysing information, evaluating evidence, inquiring witnesses, conducting hearings, writing understandable decisions, these are all important features as well. In this sense, Posner (1983, p. 778).
- 188.
Uzelac (2014, p. 149). Commenting the South African experience, Van Loggerenberg says that we must not only think of the variety of services (in the multidoor or multiaccess logic), but also of the variety of tasks attributed to judges and the variety of their capabilities and expertises (multitasked and multi-skilled). Van Loggerenberg (2014, pp. 187–188).
- 189.
- 190.
Gramckow and Walsh (2013, p. 4).
- 191.
Mak (2008, p. 6).
- 192.
This makes room for state law, at the initiative of the State Courts of Appeals, to regulate other functions for the justice of the peace, but the majority of States of the Federation have not, to date, drafted rules about the justice of the peace.
- 193.
- 194.
Fabri and Langbroek (2007).
- 195.
In most legal systems from the countries we had the opportunity to study, this possibility is not usually admitted. Expressly bringing the subject to the debate, Kerošius et al. (2014, p. 212).
- 196.
Bohn (2011, pp. 136–137).
- 197.
Langbroek and Fabri (2007, p. 21).
- 198.
Fabri and Langbroek (2007, pp. 301, 312).
- 199.
Barber (2013, pp. 567–568): ‘Identifying democracy and competency as two of the necessary, though not sufficient ingredients for a successful state gives us just enough to begin to explain the classic demands of the separation of powers. It explains why we need different types of institutions, wielding different types of power, staffed by people with different talents and qualities. (…) There is a good explanation, grounded in the point of the state, as to why the state needs an array of institutional forms, why these institutions should exercise the powers they possess, and why different types of qualification should be required of the officers who act in those bodies. The usual demands of the separation of powers can be couched in terms of suitability. Institutions and powers should be created that are suitable to the achievement of the state’s characteristic purpose. Powers should be allocated to those institutions that are most suitable for their exercise. The type of person chosen to act in these institutions should be suitable for the type of power the institution exercises.’
- 200.
This is the conclusion in some other countries. Kerošius et al. (2014, p. 211).
- 201.
Therefore, one cannot agree with Mendes (2006, pp. 276–277), that suggests only specialisation of courts.
- 202.
- 203.
Baum (2009, p. 1676).
- 204.
This measure is suggested to avoid ultra-specialisation and a sort of ‘saturation’ of the magistrate’s expertise due to an overspecificity of the subject-matter. Some authors criticise long-term stability of specialised judges, what happens in every system where judges are entitled to lifetime tenure and can only be removed or appointed elsewhere if they ask or agree to it. Zimmer (2009, pp. 5–6).
- 205.
Regarding litigation agreements, I should envisage the possibility of parties agreeing not only the assignment among the judges of the specialised list, but also agreeing to assign a specific magistrate from the list. Parties would define not only the organ (such as in forum selection clauses), but the person of the judge herself. Would that be possible? I am inclined to answer the question affirmatively. In this case, the conventional norm would derogate the need of objective and impersonal criteria to case assignment to one of the judges among those on the list (letter ‘f’ in the text). The only downside of this choice would be a possible practice of judge shopping. However, in the countries with more flexibility when it comes to case assignment, this problem has not been observed, although the theoretical issue deserves close attention. See Langbroek and Fabri (2007, p. 16, 307).
- 206.
- 207.
This characteristic has been seen as fundamental to assure efficiency in court management. Langbroek and Fabri (2007, p. 17).
- 208.
- 209.
Mak (2008, p. 3).
- 210.
Art. 34, paragraph 2°, (1), Lithuanian CPC. About the subject, Kerošius et al. (2014, p. 212, note 13 and p. 213 note 15, highlighting), however, that competence transfers are exceptional in practice.
- 211.
Damle (2005, p. 1271).
- 212.
By the risk of capture, some authors defend that the solution for some issues should be in charge of a generalist judiciary, not of specialised regulatory agencies. About the discussion, see Eskridge (2013, pp. 428ff).
- 213.
- 214.
Or adopting alternatives, such as itinerant judges. Against the euphoria over specialisation, see Uzelac (2014, pp. 156–157).
- 215.
Mak reaches a partially similar conclusion: Mak (2008, p. 5).
References
Albers P (2009) Quality assessment of courts and the judiciary: from judicial quality to court excellence. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Access to justice and the judiciary: towards new European standards of affordability, quality and efficiency of civil adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp
Almeida D (2011) O case management inglês: Um sistema maduro? Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 7:283–335
Amendoeira Jr S (2006) Poderes do juiz e tutela jurisdicional: A utilização racional dos poderes do juiz como forma de obtenção da tutela jurisdicional efetiva, justa e tempestive. Atlas, São Paulo
Andrews N (2003) English civil procedure: fundamentals of the new civil justice system. OUP, Oxford
Arenhart SC (2015a) A tutela coletiva de interesses individuais: Para além da proteção dos direitos individuais homogêneos, 2nd edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Arenhart SC (2015b) Processos estruturais no direito brasileiro: Reflexões a partir do caso da ACP do carvão. Revista de Processo Comparado 2:211–229
Arndt A (1959) Die Gesetzlichkeit des Richters. Deutsche Richterzeitung, 171ff
Ávila H (2005) Moralidade, razoabilidade e eficiência na atividade administrativa. Revista Eletrônica de Direito do Estado 4:1–25
Baar C (1999) The development and reform of court organization and administration. Public Admin Dev 19(4):351–399
Bandrac M (2003) In: Guinchard S et al Droit processuel: Droit commun et droit compare du procès, 2nd edn. Dalloz, Paris
Barber NW (2013) Self-defence for institutions. Camb L J 72(3):558–577
Barbosa Moreira JC (2001) Uma novidade: O Código de Processo Civil inglês. In: Temas de direito processual: Sétima série. Saraiva, São Paulo, pp 179–189
Barioni R (2016) Da açao rescisória. In: Wambier T, Didier F, Talamini E, Dantas B (eds) Breves comentários ao Código de Processo Civil, 2nd edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Baum L (2009) Probing the effects of judicial specialisation. Duke Law J 58(7):1671–1675
Bedaque JRdS (2006) Efetividade do processo e técnica processual. Malheiros, São Paulo
Bettermann KA (1959) Die Unabhängigkeit der Gerichte und der gesetzliche Richter. In: Bettermann KA et al (eds) Die Grundrechte: Handbuch der Theorie und Praxis der Grundrechte, vol 3. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 558ff
Bohn K (2011) Der gesetzliche Richter als rechtsstaatstragendes Prinzip in europäischen Staaten: Eine Untersuchung der Fallzuteilung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Englands. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Bone RG (1999) The process of making process: court rulemaking, democratic legitimacy, and the procedural efficacy. Georget Law J 87(4):887–955
Bone RG (2007) Who decides? A critical look at procedural discretion. Cardozo L Rev 28(5):1961–2024
Brazil WD (1986) Special masters in complex cases: extending the judiciary or reshaping adjudication. Univ Chic Law Rev 53:394–423
Bruns R (1964) Zur Auslegung des Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Grundgesetz: Das Recht auf den gesetzlichen Richter. NJW 1884
Cabral A (2009) Despolarização do processo e zonas de interesse: Sobre a migração entre polos da demanda. Revista Forense 404:7ff
Cabral A (2010a) Nulidades no processo moderno: contraditório, proteção da confiança e validade prima facie dos atos processuais, 2nd edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro
Cabral A (2014) Coisa julgada e preclusões dinâmicas: Entre continuidade, mudança e transição de posições processuais estáveis, 2nd edn. Juspodivm, Salvador
Cabral A (2016a) Convenções processuais. Juspodivm, Salvador
Cabral A (2016b) Les conventions sur la procédure en droit processuel brésilien. Revue internationale de droit compare 68(3):629–648
Cabral A (2016c) Standard-solution procedures and mass litigation. Int J Proced Law 6(2):263–281
Cabral A (2017a) Juiz natural e flexibilização de competência: flexibilização, delegação e coordenação de competências no processo civil. Thesis (Rio de Janeiro), Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Cabral A (2017b) Mediation und Schlichtung nach brasilianischem Recht. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 116(3):342–359
Cabral A (2017c) Per un nuovo concetto di giurisdizione. In: Briguglio A et al (eds) Studi in onore di Nicola Picardi, vol 1. Pacini Giuridica, Pisa
Cabral A, Cunha L (2016) Negociação direta ou resolução colaborativa de disputas: “Mediação sem mediador.” Revista de Processo 259:471–489
Cabral TNX (2010b) Flexibilização procedimental. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual 6:150–153
Cadiet L, Jeuland E (2013) Droit judiciaire privé, 8th edn. Lexis Nexis, Paris
Cahali CES (2013) O gerenciamento de processos judiciais: Em busca da efetividade da prestação jurisdictional. Coleção Andrea Proto Pisani, vol 10. Gazeta Jurídica, Brasília
Câmara AF (2013) O direito à duração razoável do processo: Entre eficiência e garantias. Revista de Processo 223:42–43
Canotilho JJG (2002) Direito constitucional e teoria da constituição, 5th edn. Almedina, Coimbra
Caponi R (2011) O princípio da proporcionalidade na justiça civil: Primeiras notas sistemáticas. Revista de Processo 192:397–415
Carneiro AG (1980) Jurisdição: Noções fundamentais. Revista de Processo 19:9–22
Carpi F (2014) Specialisation of judges as an efficiency factor in civil justice. In: Adolphsen J, Goebel J, Haas U, Hess B, Kolmann S, Würdinger M (eds) Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München
Carvalho F (2015) O princípio da eficiência no processo coletivo: Constituição, microssistema do processo coletivo e o novo Código de Processo Civil. In: Milaré É (ed) Ação civil pública após 30 anos. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Chan PCH (2017) Framing the structure of the court system in the perspective of case management. In: IAPL Conference 2017 (unpublished)
Chayes A (1976) The role of the judge in public law litigation. Harv Law Rev 89(7):1281–1316
Chiovenda G (1993) L’idea romana nel processo civile moderno. In: Saggi di Diritto Processuale Civile: 1894–1937, vol 3. Giuffrè, Milano
Clarke A (2009) The Woolf reforms: a singular event or an ongoing process? In: Dwyer D (ed) The civil procedure rules ten years on. OUP, Oxford
Cole SR (2000) Managerial litigants? The overlooked problem of party autonomy in dispute resolution. Hastings L J 51(6):1199–1263
Contini F (2010) The reflective court: dialogue as key for ‘quality work’ in the Swedish judiciary. In: Langbroek P (ed) Quality management in courts and in the judicial organisations in 8 council of Europe member states: a qualitative inventory to hypothesise factors for success or failure. CEPEJ, Strasbourg
Contini F, Carnevali D (2010) The quality of justice in Europe: conflicts, dialogue and politics. Italian National Research Council: Research Institute on Judicial Systems
Contini F, Mohr R (2007) Reconciling independence and accountability in judicial systems. Utrecht L Rev 3(2):26–43
Contini F, Mohr R (2008) Judicial evaluation: traditions, innovations and proposals for measuring the quality of court performance. VDM, Saarbrücken
Corder H (2001) Seeking social justice? Judicial independence and responsiveness in a changing South Africa. In: Russell PH, O’brien D (eds) Judicial independence in the age of democracy: critical perspectives from around the world. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville
Cornu G (1998) La codification de la procédure civile en France. In: L´art du droit en quête de sagesse. PUF, Paris
Costa EJdF (2016) Comentário ao art. 191. In: Câmara HM (ed) Código de Processo Civil Comentado. Almedina, São Paulo
Couchez G (2003) Voies d’exécution, 7th edn. Armand Colin, Paris
Couchez G (2008) Procédure civile, 15th edn. Sirey, Paris
Cramer R (2016) Comentário ao art. 972. In: Cabral AdP, Cramer R (eds) Comentários ao novo Código de Processo Civil, 2nd edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro
Cunha LCd (2013) Jurisdição e competência, 2nd edn. Thomson Reuters Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Cunha LCd (2014) A previsão do princípio da eficiência no projeto de novo Código de Processo Civil Brasileiro. Revista De Processo 233:65–84
Damle SV (2005) Specialize the judge, not the court: a lesson from the German constitutional court. Va L Rev 91(5):1267–1311
Davis LA, Garrett PA (2014) Case time and cost management for plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation. La L Rev 74(2):483–505
De Cristofaro M (2010) Case management e riforma del processo civile, tra effettività della giurisdizione e diritto costituzionale al giusto processo. Rivista di Diritto Processuale 65(2):282–305
Didier F Jr (2001) Sobre dois importantes, e esquecidos, princípios do processo: Adequação e adaptabilidade do procedimento. Revista dos Mestrandos em Direito da UFBA 224–238
Didier F Jr (2008) Apontamentos para a concretização do princípio da eficiência do processo. Revista Magister de Direito Civil e Processual Civil 52:41
Didier Jr F (2016) Curso de Direito Processual Civil, vol 1, 18th edn. Jus Podivm, Salvador
Diez-Picazo Gimenez I (1991) El derecho fundamental al juez predeterminado por la ley. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 31:116
Dinamarco CR (2016) Instituições de Direito Processual Civil, vol 1, 8th edn. Malheiros, São Paulo
Dodge J (2014) Facilitative judging: organizational design in mass-multidistrict litigation. Emory L J 64:329–382
Dodge JL (2011) The limits of procedural private ordering. Va Law Rev 97:722–799
Donnier M, Donnier JB (2003) Voies d’exécution et procédures de distribution, 7th edn. Lexis Nexis, Paris
Douglas J, Hartley R (2003) The politics of court budgeting in the States: is judicial independence threatened by the budgetary process? Public Admin Rev 63:441–453
Eidenmüller H (1995) Effizienz als Rechtsprinzip: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der ökonomischen Analyse des Rechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Eifert M (1997) Das neue Steuerungsmodell – Modell für die Modernisierung der Gerichtsverwaltung? Die Verwaltung 30:75
Eser A (1995) Der ‘gesetzliche Richter’ und seine Bestimmung für den Einzelfall: Rechtsvergleichende Beobachtungen und rechtspolitische Überlegungen zur spruchkörperinternen Geschäftsverteilung. In: Eser A, Kullmann HJ, Meyer-Grossner L, Odersky W, Voss R (eds) Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht, Recht und Verkehr, Recht und Medizin: Festschrift für Hannskarl Salger. C. Heymanns, Köln
Eskridge WN Jr (2013) Expanding Chevron’s domain: a comparative institutional analysis of the relative competence of courts and agencies to interpret statutes. Wis Law Rev 2013(2):411–454
Fabri M, Jean J-P, Langbroek P, Pauliat H (eds) (2005) L’administration de la justice en Europe et l’évaluation de sa qualité. Monchtrestien, Paris
Fabri M, Langbroek PM (2007) Is there a right judge for each case? A comparative study of case assignment in six European countries. Eur J Legal Stud 1(2):292–315
Ferejohn J (1999) Independent judges, dependent Judiciary: Explaining judicial independence. South Calif Law Rev 72:353–384
Ferraro MP (2015) Do processo bipolar a um processo coletivo-estrutural. Master thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná
Fix-Fierro H (2003) Courts, justice and efficiency: a socio-legal study of economic rationality in adjudication. Hart, Oregon
Flood J, Whyte A, Banakar R, Webb J (2007) Case assignment in English courts. In: Langbroek PM, Fabri M (eds) The right judge for each case: a study of case assignment and impartiality in six European judiciaries. Intersentia, Antwerp
Foignet R (1932) Manuel élémentaire de Procédure Civile, 11th edn. Rousseau, Paris
Gajardoni FdF (2008a) A flexibilização do procedimento processual no âmbito da common law. Revista de Processo 163:161–178
Gajardoni FdF (2008b) Flexibilização procedimental: Um novo enfoque para o estudo do procedimento em matéria processual, de acordo com as recentes reformas do CPC. Atlas, São Paulo
Gajardoni FdF, Dellore L, Roque AV, Oliveira JR ZDd (2015) Comentários ao CPC de 2015: Parte geral. Metodo, São Paulo
Gelsi Bidart A (1958) Competencia y delegación. In: Scritti giuridici in memoria di Calamandrei, vol 2. CEDAM, Padova
Geraldes ASA (2012) Temas da reforma do processo civil. In: Julgar Nº 16 (Jan-Abr 2012). Coimbra, Lisboa, pp 47–97
Gilles ME (2000) Reinventing structural reform litigation: deputizing private citizens in the enforcement of civil rights. Colum L Rev 100(6):1384–1453
Gimeno Sendra V (1988) El derecho constitucional al juez legal. In: Constitución y proceso. Tecnos, Madrid
Giuliani A, Picardi N (1987) Professionalità e responsabilità del giudice. Rivista di Diritto Processuale 42(2):249–299
Gomes AO, Guimarães TA, Akutsu L (2016) The relationship between judicial staff and court performance: evidence from Brazilian State Courts. Int J Court Adm 8(1):12–19
Gramckow H, Walsh B (2013) Developing specialized court services: international experiences and lessons learned. Justice and Development Working Paper 81946
Greco L (1999) A execução e a efetividade do processo. Revista de Processo 94:34–66
Greco L (2012) Novas perspectivas da efetividade e do garantismo processual. In: Souza MCXd et al (eds) O novo Código de Processo Civil: O projeto do CPC e o desafio das garantias fundamentais. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro
Greco L (2015) Instituições de Processo Civil, vol 1, 5th edn. Forense, Rio de Janeiro
Guiliani A (1988) L’ordo judiciarius medioevale (Riflessioni su un modello puro di ordine isonomico). Rivista di Diritto Processuale 43:598–614
Hagsgård MB (2014) Internal and external dialogue: a method for quality court management. Oñati Socio-legal Series 4(5):993–1014
Heinz KE (1997) Delegation und Mandat: Eine rechts- und verfassungstheoretische Untersuchung. Der Staat 36(1):495–520
Henkel J (1968) Der gesetzliche Richter. University of Göttingen, Thesis
Hensler DR (1990) Assessing claims resolution facilities: what we need to know. Law Contemp Probl 53(4):175–188
Héron J, Le Bars T (2006) Droit judiciaire privé, 3rd edn. Montchrestien, Paris
Hess B (2006) Effektiver Rechtsschutz vor staatlichen Gerichten aus deutscher und vergleichender Sicht. In: Gottwald P (ed) Effektivität des Rechtsschutzes vor staatlichen und privaten Gerichten. Gieseking, Bielefeld
Hess B (2010) Different enforcement structures. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability: tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp
Hesse K (1995) Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 20th edn. Heidelberg
Hippeli M (2013) Privatisierung des Gerichtsvollzieherwesens. C.F. Müller, Hamburg
Hoffmann-Riem W (1997) Wahrheit, Gerechtigkeit, Unabhängigkeit und Effizienz – das Magische Viereck der Dritten Gewalt? JZ 52(1):1–8
Hoffman-Riem W (2001) Modernisierung von recht und justiz: Eine herausforderung des gewährleistungsstaates. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
Hol A, Loth M (2004) Reshaping justice: judicial reform and adjudication in the Netherlands. Shaker Publishing B.V., Maastricht
Hurst P (2009) Costs orders as a case management tool. In: Dwyer D (ed) The civil procedure rules ten years on. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp 171–181
Jacobs M (2011) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Jauernig O, Hess B (2011) Zivilprozessrecht, 30th edn. C.H. Beck, München
Jellinek G (1892) System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte. J.C.B. Mohr, Freiburg im Breisgau
Jellinek G (1969) Die Lehre von den Staatenverbindungen. Scientia, Aalen
Jeuland E (2011) Le renouveau du principe du juge naturel et l’industrialisation de la justice. In: Frydman B, Jeuland E. Le nouveau management de la justice et l’indépendence des juges. Dalloz, Paris
Jeuland E (2017) Toward a new court management and the rise of the court manager—general report. In: IAPL Conference 2017 (unpublished)
Jongbloed AW (2010) The Dutch Court Bailiffs Act eight years after its introduction. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (ed) Enforcement and enforceability: tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp
Karpen U (1999) Brauchen wir einen Gerichtsmanager? In: Isensee J, Lecheler H (eds) Freiheit und Eigentum: Festschrift für Walter Leisner zum 70. Geburtstag. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Kern CA (2017) Der gesetzliche Richter – Verfassungsprinzip oder Ermessensfrage? Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeβ 130(1):91–120
Kerošius V, Simaitis R, Vėbraitė V (2014) Specialisation of judges and the lenght of proceedings: Lithuanian approach. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeβ International 19:209–227
Komesar NK (1994) Imperfect alternatives: choosing institutions in law, economics and public policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kramer B (2001) Modernisierung der Justiz: Das Neue Steuerungsmodell. NJW 54:3449–3453
Küster O (1949) Das Gewaltenproblem im modernen Staat. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 75(4):397–413
Langbroek P (2007) Case assignment in Dutch courts. In: Langbroek PM, Fabri M (eds) The right judge for each case: a study of case assignment and impartiality in six European judiciaries. Intersentia, Antwerp
Langbroek P, Fabri M (2007) Internal case assignment and judicial impartiality: Comparative analysis. In: Langbroek P, Fabri M (eds) The right judge for each case: a study of case assignment and impartiality in six European judiciaries. Intersentia, Antwerp
Leisner W (1995) ‘Gesetzlicher Richter’ – vom Vorsitzenden bestimmt? Problematisches Richterrecht aus den Vereinigten Großen BGH-Senate. NJW 48:285–289
Loth MA, De Werd MFJM (2003) Teilaspekte der Gerichtsorganisation in den Niederlanden im Überblick. Deutsche Richterzeitung 81(9):315–321
Machado Alves T (2016) O gerenciamento processual no Código de Processo Civil de 2015: mecanismos para a gestão cooperativa da instrução probatória e integração da atuação dos sujeitos processuais. PhD thesis, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Mak E (2008) Balancing territoriality and functionality; specialisation as a tool for reforming jurisdiction in the Netherlands, France and Germany. Int J Court Adm 1(2):1–8
Marcus RL (2008) Cure-all for an era of dispersed litigation? Toward a maximalist use of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel’s transfer power. Tul L Rev 82:2245–2296
Marinoni LG, Arenhart S, Mitidiero D (2015a) Novo Código de Processo Civil comentado. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Marinoni LG, Arenhart S, Mitidiero D (2015b) Novo curso de processo civil, vol 2. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Marques JF (1974) Manual de Direito Processual Civil, vol 1, 2nd ed. Saraiva, São Paulo
Marx E (1969) Der gesetzliche Richter im Sinne von Art. 101 Abs.1 Satz 2 Grundgesetz. De Gruyter, Berlin
Mäurer U (2000) Justiz – Aufbruch oder Abbruch? Ressourceneinsatz und Arbeitsleistung der Justiz. Deutsche Richterzeitung 65ff
Mbazira C (2009) Litigating socio-economic rights in South Africa: a choice between corrective and distributive justice. Pretoria University Law Press, Pretoria
Mcgovern F (1986) Toward a functional approach for managing complex litigation. Univ Chic L Rev 53(2):440–493
McGovern FE (1983) Management of multiparty toxic tort litigation: case law and trends affecting case management. The Forum 19:1–23
McGovern FE (1997) Rethinking cooperation among judges in mass tort litigation. UCLA Law Rev 44:1851–1870
McGovern FE (2005) The what and why of claims resolution facilities. Stanf Law Rev 57(5):1361–1389
Medina JMG (2015) Direito processual civil moderno. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Mendes A (2006) O juiz competente e a especialização judicial no Código-Modelo de Processos Coletivos. Revista de Processo 133:267–277
Mettenheim C (1970) Der Grundsatz der Prozeβökonomie im Zivilprozeβ. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Mitidiero D (2013) Cortes superiores e cortes supremas: do controle à interpretação, da jurisprudência ao precedente. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Mitsopoulos M, Pelagidis T (2007) Does staffing affect the time to dispose cases in Greek courts? Int Rev Law Econ 27(2):219–244
Molot JT (2003) An old judicial role for a new litigation era. Yale L J 113(1):27–118
Müssig U (2009) Recht und Justizhoheit, 2nd edn. Taschenbuch, Berlin
Ng GY, Velicogna M, Dallara C (2008) Monitoring and evaluation of courts activities and performance. Int J Court Adm 1(1):58–64
Nunes DJC, Bahia AGMF (2009) Eficiência processual: algumas questões. Revista de Processo 169(34):116–139
Obermayer K (1956) Zur Übertragung von Hoheitsbefugnissen im Bereich des Verwaltungsbehörden. Juristen Zeitung 11(20):625–630
Oldfather CM (2012) Judging, expertise and the rule of law. Wash Univ L Rev 89(4):847–900
Oliveira CAA, Mitidiero D (2012) Curso de processo civil, 2nd edn. Atlas, São Paulo
Oliveira GP (2013) Adaptabilidade judicial: A modificação do procedimento pelo juiz no processo civil. Saraiva, São Paulo
Ono T (2016) A flexibilização procedimental: uma comparação entre os sistemas jurídicos brasileiro, inglês e português. Revista de Processo 254:407–427
Papier HJ (2001) Die richterliche Unabhängigkeit und ihre Schranken. NJW 54(15):1089–1094
Papier HJ (2002) Zur Selbsverwaltung Der Dritten Gewalt. NJW 55(36):2585–2593
Pauliat H (2008) Le modèle français d’administration de la justice: distinctions et convergences entre justice judiciaire et justice administrative. Revue française d’administration publique 125(1):108
Peckham RF (1981) The federal judge as a case manager: the new role in guiding a case from filing to disposition. Calif L Rev 69(3):770–773
Pérez López X (2011) La delegación de jurisdicción en el derecho romano. Edisofer, Madrid
Perez-Ragone Á (2014) The conflicts between the fundamental rights of the creditor and the debtor. In: IAPL Seoul Conference 2014
Perez-Ragone Á (2017) An approach and general overview to framing the structure of the court system and case management—general report. In: IAPL Tianjin Conference 2017 (unpublished)
Perrot R (2006) Institutions judiciaires, 12th edn. Montchrestien, Paris
Peterson MA (1990) Giving away money: comparative comments on claims resolution facilities. Law Contemp Probl 53(4):113–136
Pflughaupt M (2011) Prozessökonomie: Verfassungsrechtliche Anatomie und Belastbarkeit eines gern bemühten Arguments. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Picardi N (1985) Il giudice ordinario (le variabili nella tradizione del diritto comune europeo). Rivista di Diritto Processuale 8(9):802–809
Pinho JC (2000) Breve ensaio sobre a competência hierárquica. Coimbra, Almedina
Porcelli F (2009) Measurement of technical efficiency: a brief survey no parametric and non-parametric techniques. Paper, University of Warwick. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.232.4843&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2020
Posner R (1983) Will the federal courts of appeals survive until 1984? An essay on delegation and specialisation of the judicial function. South Calif L Rev 56:761–791
Rasch E (1957) Festlegung und Veränderung staatlicher Zuständigkeiten. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung (12):337ff
Redenti E, Vellani M (2000) Diritto processuale civile, vol 1. A. Giuffrè, Milano
Renoux TS (1993) Il principio del giudice naturale nel diritto costituzionale francese. In: Il principio di precostituzione del giudice. Quaderni del Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, vol 66
Resnik J (1982) Managerial judges. Harv L Rev 96(2):374–448
Resnik J (1986) Failing faith: adjudicatory procedure in decline. U Chicago L Rev 53(2):494–560
Resnik J (1991) From cases to litigation. Law Contemp Probl 54(5):5–68
Roach K, Budlender G (2005) Mandatory relief and supervisory jurisdiction: when is it appropriate, just and equitable? S Afr L J 122(2):325–351
Rodotà S (1985) Attuali asimmetrie del sistema istituzionale e legittimazione del potere giudiziario. In: Poteri e giurisdizione: Atti del sesto congresso nazionale. Jovene, Napoli
Röhl KF (1998) Vom Gerichtsmanagement zur Selbstverwaltung der Justiz. Deutsche Richterzeitung 241–250
Romboli R (1993) Teoria e prassi del principio di precostituzione del giudice. In: Il principio di precostituzione del giudice. Quaderni del Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, vol 66
Roque A (2014) Arbitragem de direitos coletivos no Brasil: Admissibilidade, finalidade e estrutura. PhD thesis, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Rosales-López V (2008) Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis. Eur J L Econ 25:231–251
Roth T (2000) Das Grundrecht auf den gesetzlichen Richter. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Rothstein BJ, Borden CR (2011) Managing multidistrict litigation in products liability cases: a pocket guide for transferee judges. Federal Judicial Center, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Rottman DB (2000) Does effective therapeutic jurisprudence require specialized courts (and do specialized courts imply specialist judges)? Court Rev 37(1):22–27
Sabatini G (1961) La competenza surrogatoria ed il principio del giudice naturale nel processo penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 4:946
Santos BS (1985) Introdução à sociologia da administração da justiça. Revista de Processo 37(21):11–44
Santos MA (2007) Primeiras linhas de direito processual civil, vol 1. Saraiva, São Paulo
Schenke WR (1977) Delegation und Mandat im Öffentlichen Recht. Verwaltungs Archiv 68:118–168
Schönke A (1951) Lehrbuch des Zivilprozessrechts, 7th edn. C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe
Schulze-Fielitz H (2008) In: Dreier H (ed) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, vol 3, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Schumann E (1973) Die Prozeβökonomie als rechtsethisches Prinzip. In: Paulus G et al (eds) Festschrift für Karl Larenz zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München
Scott J, Sturm SP (2006) Courts as catalysts: rethinking the judicial role in new governance. Columbia J Eur L 13:565–594
Shetreet S (1989) Adjudication: challenges of the present and blueprints for the future. In: Lindacher WF et al (eds) Festschrift für Walther J. Habscheid zum 65. Geburtstag. Gieseking, Bielefeld
Silva PE (2010) Gerenciamento dos processos judiciais. Saraiva, São Paulo
Silvestri E (2014) Judicial specialization: in search for ‘the right judge for each case?’ Russ L J 2(4):165–175
Sodan H (2005) Das Spannungsverhältnis von Qualität und Quantität in der Justiz. Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 18:764–771
Solus H, Perrot R (1991) Droit judiciaire privé, vol 3. Sirey, Paris
Sorabji J (2017) Managing claims—general report. In: IAPL Tianjin Conference 2017 (unpublished)
Storme M, Hess B (eds) (2003) Discretionary power of the judge: limits and control. Kluwer, Mechelen
Strong SI (2013) Class, mass and collective arbitration in national and international law. OUP, Oxford
Terekhova L (2014) Grounds for the specialisation of courts and judges in Russia. Russ L J 2(4):176–186
Theodoro H Jr (2011) Curso de direito processual civil, vol 1, 46th edn. Podivm, Rio de Janeiro
Thiedemann H (2003) The ‘lawful judge’: a comparative survey on the allocation of cases to judges in South Africa and Germany. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 36(2):228–260
Triepel H (1942) Delegation und Mandat im öffentlichen Recht. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
Tucci JR, Azevedo LC (2001) Lições de processo civil canônico (história e direito vigente). Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Turner R (2010) A model for an enforcement regime: the high court enforcement officers of the supreme court of England and Wales. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability: tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp
Tushnet M (2008) Weak courts, strong rights: judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Uzelac A (2008) Reforming mediterranean civil procedure: is there a need for shock therapy? In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil Justice between efficiency and quality: from ius commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerp
Uzelac A (2010) Privatization of enforcement services: a step forward for countries in transition? In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability: tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp
Uzelac A (2014) Mixed blessing of judicial specialisation: the devil is in the detail. Russ L J 2(4):146–164
Valguarnera F (2008) Le riforme del processo civile in Norvegia: Qualque riflessione comparativa. Riv Trimest Dirit Proced Civ 62(3):885–912
Van Bynkershoek C (1737) Questions of public law (trans: Tenney Frank), book 2, chapter 12. http://lonang.com/library/reference/bynkershoek-questions-public-law/bynk-212/. Accessed 1 Dec 2020
Van der Grinten P (2012) A Dutch perspective on civil litigation and its harmonisation. In: Kramer XE, Van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. Springer, Hague
Van Dijk F (2014) Improved performance of the Netherlands judiciary: assessment of the gains for society. Int J Court Adm 6(1):83–99
Van Loggerenberg D (2014) Specialization of South African judges and courts: multi-skilled, multitasked, multiaccess? Russ L J 2(4):187–203
Van Rhee CH (2008a) Dutch civil procedure: reform and efficiency. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality: from ius commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerp
Van Rhee CH (2008b) Introduction. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) Judicial case management and efficiency in civil litigation. Intersentia, Antwerp
Verbic F (2013) El remedio estructural de la causa ‘Mendoza:’ Antecedentes, principales características y algunas cuestiones planteadas durante los primeros tres años de su implementación. Revista Anales De La Facultad De Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales De La UNLP 43:267–286
Vincent J, Guinchard S (2003) Procédure civile, 27th edn. Dalloz, Paris
Voermans W (2007) Judicial transparency furthering public accountability for new judiciaries. Utrecht L Rev 3(1):148–159
Voet S (2014) Belgium’s new specialized judiciary. Russ L J 2(4):128–145
Wang F (2017) The history and future of civil judicial management in China. In: IAPL Tianjin Conference 2017 (unpublished)
Weth S (1997) Prämien für gute Richter. In: Prütting H, Rüssmann H (eds) Verfahrensrecht am Ausgang des 20. Jahrhunderts: Festschrift für Gerhard Lüke zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München
Wheeler R (1979) Judicial reform: basic issues and references. Policy Stud J 8(1):134–149
Wilke D (2007) Die Rechtsprechende Gewalt. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol 5, 3rd edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
Yarkov V, Abolonin V (2010) Enforcement in Russia: a short outline. In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Enforcement and enforceability: tradition and reform. Intersentia, Antwerp
Yeazell S (1989) Collective litigation as collective action. U Ill L Rev 41(1):43–68
Zimmer MB (2009) Overview of specialized courts. Int J Court Adm 2(1):46–60
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cabral, A. (2023). New Trends and Perspectives on Case Management: Proposals on Procedural Agreements and Case Assignment Management. In: Cadiet, L., Fu, Y. (eds) On Judicial Management from Comparative Perspective. Contemporary Chinese Civil and Commercial Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8673-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8673-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-8672-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-8673-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)