Collectivization of European Civil Procedure: Are We Finally Close to a (Negative) Utopia?

Europe is unison in its rediscovered interest for collective and group litigation. New initiatives, legislative projects and model rules on collective redress emerge almost on a daily basis. In this chapter, the editors provide the background to this development and introduce the research presented in other chapters gathered in this book. Longstanding tradition of American class actions and their broad practical use are contrasted to the relatively recent European fascination with collective redress mechanisms and their limited reach. But, while incoherent and fragmented legislation on collective redress still does not produce spectacular results, many diverse initiatives demonstrate that the landscape of collective litigation is changing quickly. The trial and error approach that has so far characterized European attempts to introduce a workable collective redress system that is radically different from American-style class actions, did not so far produce a universal solution. However, a few important steps towards the Holy Grail of effective European collective redress have been made, both at the EU level, and at the level of its Member States. After a brief summary of the developments noted in the chapters which follow, the authors ask questions regarding the limits of collectivization of civil justice in a European context. Should the spread of collective procedures be embraced without reservations, or may it turn out to be a ‘wrong trail’? The answer to this question depends on the ability to adjust collective redress mechanisms to urgent social needs and public purposes on one side, and to specific features of European legal systems on the other side. Recent global developments show that particular local circumstances play an important role in designing specific forms of collective redress. The enthusiasm about class and representative relief should take into account multiple risks entailed in the collectivization of civil procedure. Examples from Canada, Brazil and China indicate that local procedures may or may not work properly, but that none of them can be simply exported to different environments with different social policies and institutional infrastructures.