THE IMPACT OF FURTHER DIGITALISATION OF EU CIVIL JUDICIAL COOPERATION ON NATIONAL PROCEDURAL LAWS: A CASE STUDY OF HUNGARY
The Member States of the European Union are continuously striving for an ever-wider digitalization of judicial cooperation in accordance with the principle of “digital by default”. From 1 May 2025 onwards, e-communication will become a priority and in many EU proceedings to facilitate oral hearings in proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters with cross-border implications the optional use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology will be available. With regard to EU proceedings, it is the responsibility of the Member States (MS) to fill in procedural issues not covered by EU law with national law, provided that this does not undermine the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law. EU MSs are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and all EU MSs are party to the European Convention on Human Rights. In light of the above, MS should adapt their national procedural law to the new EU digital procedural possibilities, while considering the fundamental rights jurisprudence of both the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts. The national legislator can respond either by creating specific procedural rules or by adapting the general rules of national law. The need for more extensive use of digital solutions is also apparent in national procedures. In this framework, a case study focusing on Hungary will be presented. Therefore, the modification of the general rules is the way to go, which can also contribute to even greater harmonisation of national procedural laws in the MSs, indirectly.
Keywords: digitalization of civil procedure, e-justice, EU law, judicial cooperation, videoconferencing.
Bordaš, B, Varadi T, Knežević G. & Pavić V. 2007. Međunarodno privatno pravo (International private law), Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
Carodine, M. D. 2007. Political Judging: When Due Process Goes International, William and Mary Law Review, 2007(48), pp. 1159-1246.
Damjanović, B. 2015. Crnogorski i američki pogled na arbitrabilnost. In: Zbornik radova sa međunarodne naučno-stručne konferencije “Tenedencije razvoja pravne nauke u savremeno doba“, Ruska Federacija: Državni univerzitet u Kemerovu, pp. 357-361.
Grbin, I. 1980. Priznanje i izvršenje odluka stranih sudova (Recognition and enforcement of foreign court awards), Zagreb: Informator.
Harris, T. L. 2007. The ‘Public Policy’ Exception to Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards Under the New York Convention, with Particular Reference to Construction Disputes, Journal of International Arbitration, 24(1), pp. 9-24. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2007003
Joelson, M. 2007. The Interplay of International, Federal and State Law in US Arbitration, Journal of International Arbitration, 24(4), pp. 379-388. https://doi.org/10.54648/JOIA2007026
Knežević, G. 2007. Međunarodna trgovačka arbitraža, Osnovna pitanja i problemi Beograd: Pravni fakultet.
Kostić-Mandić, M, Stanivuković, M. & Živković, M. 2010. Private International Law of Montenegro. In: International Encyclopaedia of Law. Kluwer Law International. https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvs052
Lu, M. 2006. The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Analysis of the Seven Defenses to Oppose Enforcement in the United States and England, Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, 23(3), pp. 747-785.
Pavić, V. 2010. National Reports-Serbia. In: L. Mistelis, L. Shore & H. Smit (eds.) World Arbitration Reporter, 2nd ed. JurisNet.
Sajko, K. 2010. On Arbitrability in Comparative Arbitration-An Outline, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 60(5), pp. 961-969.
Tapola, D. 2006. Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: application of the Public Policy Rule in Russia, Arbitration International, 22(1), pp. 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/22.1.151
Trajković M. 2000. Međunarodno arbitražno parvo, Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Udruženje pravnika Jugoslavije.
Uzelac A. 2001. The Form of the Arbitration Agreement and the Fiction of Written Orality, How Far Should We Go? Croatian Arbitration Yearbook. 2001(8), pp. 83-107.
Vukoslavčević, B. 2011. Javni poredak u funkciji priznanja stranih odluka, In: Zbornik radova načela i vrijednosti pravnog sistema – norma i praksa, pp. 200-210.
Vukoslavčević, B. 2012. Priznanje i izvršenje sudskih i arbitražnih odluka – Komparacija sistema Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Republike Srbije i Crne Gore (Recognition and Enforcement of Judicial and Arbitral Awards – A Comparison of the Systems of the United States of America and the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro). Podgorica: Univerzitet Mediteran.
Vuković, Đ & Eduard, K. 2005. Međunarodno građansko postupovno pravo. Zagreb: Zgombić i partneri.
Vuković Đ. 1986. Priznanje i izvršenje stranih sudskih i drugih odluka koje su sa njima izjednačene. Banja Luka: Glas.
Legal sources and case law
Arbitration Law of the Republic of Serbia, Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 46/2006.
Arbitration Law of Montenegro, Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 47/2015.
Arbitration Law of the Republic of Croatia, Official Gazette, no. 88/01.
Law on the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 11/2015.
Constitutional Court of Montenegro, no. U-III 1624/18, of January 29, 2019.
Constitutional Court of Montenegro, no. U-III br. 1328/19, of January 28, 2021.