Evidence in Contemporary Civil Procedure ─ Fundamental Issues in a Comparative Perspective

Since the start of the new millennium, many contemporary jurisdictions have been revisiting the fundamental principles of their civil procedures. Even the core areas of the civil process are not left untouched, including the way in which evidence is introduced, collected and presented in court. One generator of the reforms in the field of evidence-taking in recent decades has been slow and inefficient litigation. Both in Europe and globally, reaching a balance between the demands of factual accuracy and the need to adjudicate disputes in a swift, cost-effective and efficient way is still one of the key challenges. The second reason that many countries are reforming their law of evidence is related to cultural and technological changes in modern societies. As the balance between, on the one side, traditional human rights such as the right to privacy and due process is shifting towards, on the other side, the modern need for security, efficiency and quick access to justice, the perception of what is admissible or not in the context of evidence-taking is changing as well. In the same sense, the fast pace of modern life commands different practices of fact-finding, accompanied by new methods of selection of evidence that are appropriate for this purpose. Last but not least, the overwhelming penetration of new technologies into all spheres of public and private life has the capacity to dramatically change the methods of the collection and presentation of evidence. Exploring these issues, the editors of this book invited the contributors to reflect on how these trends affect the situation in their countries and to present their views on further developments, both nationally and in comparison with the developments in other countries and regions. A further goal was to inquire whether, in spite of national differences that are still dominant, the approaches to civil evidence are converging, and whether reforms affecting fact-finding have a chance of leading to some forms of harmonization.

Alan Uzelac is Professor at the Zagreb University and Chair of Department for Civil Procedure of the Faculty of Law. His teaching and research includes issues of national and comparative civil procedure, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, organization of judiciary, legal professions and procedural human rights. He holds degrees in law (LL.B., LL.M., LL.D.) and social sciences (M.A. (phil.), M.A. (literature)) from Zagreb University. He was visiting researcher and scholar at a number of universities, including Harvard Law School (Fulbright grant), and universities of Vienna (Austria), Maastricht (the Netherlands), Oslo (Norway), Kazan (Russia), and Pavia (Italy). As an active member of the International Association of Procedural Law and the German Association for International Procedural Law, he serves on the chief advisory bodies of both organizations (Council, Rat). Since mid-90s, he was engaged as national delegate of Croatia in the work of UNCITRAL Working Group for Arbitration and Conciliation were he participated in drafting of the several international instruments in the field of alternative dispute resolution. He was involved in various activities of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe, where he held different functions (inter alia: Bureau member from 2003-2006, President of the Task Force on Timeframes of Proceedings - TF-DEL 2005-2006). His professional experience includes work in various Croatian courts, Croatian State Bar Exam, and internship at the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris. Over a period of ten years, Professor Uzelac was Secretary General of the Permanent Arbitration Court at the Croatian Chamber of Commerce. Throughout his career, he was often engaged as expert in various legislative projects. As an international expert he was engaged on a number of missions, assisting legal reforms and legal collaboration in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Russia and Kosovo. Professor Uzelac also acts as member of the highest body for judicial appointments and discipline, the State Judicial Council in 2012-2015 period. 2