Interview Jos Hoevenaars in ‘Het Advocatenblad’
The ERC Building EU Civil Justice team is running a series of seminars. The series covers a variety of topics in the field of European civil justice and zoom in on the key topics our group has been working on over the past four years. These include the privatization and digitalization of civil justice, cross-border judicial co-operation, international business courts, and self-representation. Each session will bring together invited speakers and our own researchers. To join us for one or more of these sessions, please register here over Eventbrite.
Thursday, 15 July (15.30-17.30 CET)
European Civil Justice in Transition: Past, Present & Future
In this last seminar of the series several highly regarded academics in the area of European civil justice shed their light on key current and future issues, including digitisation, collective redress, ADR and funding of civil justice.
Speakers: Alan Uzelac, Burkhard Hess, Eva Storskrubb and John Sorabji (moderated by Alexandre Biard and Xandra Kramer)
Thursday, 1 July (16:00-18:00)
Friday, 2 July (09:30-11:30)
The Arbitralization of Courts
Thursday, 6 May (15:00-17:00)
Friday, 21 May (10:00-12:00)
Friday, 4 June (10:00-12:00)
Published: March 5, 2020
Jos Hoevenaars was interviewed for the Dutch magazine for the legal profession ‘Het Advocatenblad’ about his insight into the experiences of lawyers who find themselves litigating before the European Court of Justice after their case is referred though a reference for a preliminary ruling. In the interview (freely translated: ‘Court of Justice? Experience Needed!’) he discusses his empirical research among Dutch lawyers and paints a picture of generally overwhelmed professionals scrambling for assistance among EU law scholars, while making the best of their opportunity to plead before the ECJ, often in opposition to a group of well-trained EU law experts appearing on behalf of intervening Member States. His work on the reference procedure highlight the inequality in representation before the ECJ and its potential negative impact on the Court’s caselaw and its national consequences.