Access to effective justice in civil disputes lies at the heart of judicial systems, and is also embodied in Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention. Every citizen should be able to enforce his substantive rights, or to effectively defend his rights when being sued. The recently adopted Stockholm programme, defining the political priorities of the European Union for 2010-2014, emphasises the citizen-centric approach as one of the lessons learnt from the failure to establish a European constitution, and recognises the great importance of effective civil justice. One of the key measures is to abolish the exequatur - the intermediate procedure in the Member State of enforcement to obtain permission to enforce a judgment from another Member State - in civil and commercial matters. If exequatur proceedings at the court of enforcement (post-testing) are abolished, it is essential to secure procedural fairness during trial at the court of origin (pre-testing). The sacrifice of crucial procedural rights, such as the right to be heard, access to information, and adequate remedies, on the pyre of efficiency should be avoided. This issue is particularly urgent, since procedural law differs substantially per Member State, and no overriding EU system of procedural guarantees exists. For example, how can it be guaranteed that a judgment rendered in Poland against a Dutch defendant and to be enforced in the Netherlands is obtained in a fair trial? Which rights should be secured as a minimum requirement, and how? This research will identify current problems, review what will qualify as fundamental procedural rights, and formulate principles to secure minimum standards of civil justice. While securing quality of justice, such principles of European civil procedure will greatly facilitate more effective justice in cross-border cases and invigorate the judicial systems of individual Member States.

How do we keep civil justice affordable in Europe? Access to justice to enforce rights is crucial for consumers and businesses. But the costs of procedures are high, and public legal aid and financing of justice has been under pressure. The researchers evaluate alternative pathways to fund civil procedures and to regulate costs in civil procedures in a number of countries and at the European level.

Both for carriers and customs, containerisation causes uncertainty about the exact nature and (possibly dangerous or unlawful) attributes of cargo stowed in these boxes. Increasingly carriers actively generate relevant information about nature and dangers of containerised cargoes carried on their ships as part of their risk assessment and management. Information gained from these controls may allow customs to enhance their risk assessment and alternate between monitoring instruments (e.g. less physical inspec-tions). However, the juridical status of information gathered and the legality of (modes of) information-sharing are unclear due to legal considerations such as privacy protection and goal-binding of information collected. This is a major barrier for companies to share extra information with customs derived from their internal controls. This research is aimed at gaining insight in the control measures used by carriers, the kinds of information stored, the legal status of the information, and the possibilities to share information based on the context from a juridical and information-sharing perspective. Information-sharing and the surrounding legal framework need to be in concert to ensure a sound legal basis for this collaboration between carriers and customs and a lawful status of the information thus shared. However, this relation-ship is ill-understood. The interrelation between (modes of) information-gathering, -storing and -sharing and the applicable legal rules is examined in a joint project in which researchers with ICT and legal expertise collaborate. This should result in a balanced and orchestrated information-sharing process capable of providing mutual benefits for carriers and customs and of surviving legal scrutiny.