Interview Jos Hoevenaars in ‘Het Advocatenblad’
16 and 17 November 2020 at Erasmus University Rotterdam
Civil justice remains in constant flux. The design of a sustainable civil justice system for the 21st century is continuously discussed both at national and international level. Particularly at international level, several soft law instruments have been adopted in recent years such as the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the ELI/UNIDROIT Model Rules of Civil Procedure and the ELI statement on the relationship between formal and informal justice.
The conference addresses four key issues in civil justice, which require a deeper and renewed reflection in light of their contribution of facilitating access to justice. Those trends concern the shaping of the interaction between formal and informal justice, the digitalization of consumer dispute resolution, the collectivizing and monetizing of civil litigation and efforts of bringing justice closer to citizens. The conference will bring together academics, policymakers, practitioners and representatives of civil society to critically reflect on the opportunities and possible drawbacks ensuing from these paramount developments.
This conference is organised by Erasmus School of Law at Rotterdam University under the ERC project ‘Building EU Civil Justice’ (www.euciviljustice.eu).
The conference is set up as a blended event, with speakers at the site and some presenting online. If necessary, in the light of the COVID-19 situation, the conference will take place online entirely.
For more information, do not hesitate to contact us at email@example.com (Betül).
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.