Research Stefan Rutten

Abstract

Cases like the 20-year legal battle over the unauthorized sampling of two seconds from a song by the German band, Kraftwerk, show that resolution of copyright can be expensive and time-consuming. The picture has become even grimmer with the digital revolution and its trail of social media proliferation, e-commerce and globalized market for digital content, which have increased the means for content distribution, and consequently - infringement. This should necessarily lead to the question: if litigation encounters such significant challenges and if Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms are regarded as an appropriate alternative for dispute resolution by courts, why have ADR mechanisms not been better embraced for copyright dispute resolution, even in instances where they are statutorily recommended? The fear of blacklisting of authors and the fear of bias against copyright exploiters are regarded as reasons for the unpopularity of ADR methods in copyright disputes. Both reasons, and indeed the evidence of low usage, signal a design flaw in the system of copyright dispute resolution. This project seeks to integrate two bodies of literature in the field of dispute resolution – those relating to intellectual property (IP) law and those relating to Dispute Systems Design (DSD), to propose a model for copyright disputes resolution by integrating DSD strategies with the peculiarities of copyright-dense industries and disputes. This research shall combine legal doctrinal research methodology with empirical research to ultimately determine how the copyright dispute resolution system can be designed to enhance trust in ADR, boost stakeholders' use of ADR and contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the copyright system. This project shall add to the field of research on IP enforcement and dispute resolution and contribute to preserving the value of IP rights in the face of relentless infringement. It will also inform and guide the discourse on the enforcement of IP rights towards an effective and sustainable digital age dispute resolution system for the enforcement of rights and the realization of the objectives of the copyright system.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: van Zimmeren Esther
• Co-promoter: Rutten Stefan
• Fellow: Lari-Williams Seun

Research team(s)

• Government and Law

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

PAX 2.0 combines a number of educational and training activities to ensure a better understanding ans application of the main legal instruments in the area of civil justice. The project therefore intends to combine the components of the earlier JUDGTRUST and PAX projects that have proven their worth -i.e. the moot court and partnership with the judiciary- with two new elements: a particular focus put on the further extension of the moot court to student teams from third countries and the development of a guide on the organization of moot courts on EU private international law that would make the expertise gained in our earlier projects available to the Commission through a practical manual. Ideally, this manual would be made freely accessible online. A further important element of PAX 2.0, which is also in line with JUDGTRUST and PAX, is that the moot courts and judicial training will focus on topical issues of EU private international law, which should ensure improved knowledge of those legislative instruments that are new and/or raise new legal questions. In short, this proposal seeks to ensure that the proposed consortium further develops and expands students', academics' and trainee judges' knowledge on major recent developments of EU private international law, through moot courts and judicial trainings respectively. It is therefore meant to improve the effective and coherent application of the legislative instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters. Moreover, it envisages the consolidation of the moot courts as an attractive educational tool in that respect, both for EU and non-EU law students interested in EU private international law.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Pertegas Marta
• Co-promoter: Kruger Thalia
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Rutten Stefan

Research team(s)

• Law and Development

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Despite the wealth that a large proportion of our society is living in, many European households are unable to repay their debts. Their creditors might find themselves in an equally difficult position as they need payment to avoid getting into debt themselves. Debt collectors take full advantage of this and proceed to consumer debt collection at high costs. This leads to an accumulation of debt costs which in turn pushes the debtor into a negative spiral of escalating debts and ultimately into poverty. The urgent need to stop this negative spiral has been expressed by legal scholars and practitioners in many European jurisdictions. The current legislative approach is insufficient and fragmented. In times where debts are on the rise due to the pandemic, SUSTDEBT answers the compelling call for action. Sustainable debt collection pays attention to both efficiency and ethical concerns. SUSTDEBT takes a bifold approach to appropriately address the multiple challenges of consumer debt collection. First, starting from a fundamental rights analysis, combined with insights stemming from comparative law and an empirical study, SUSTDEBT will define and conceptualise efficient and ethical debt collection. Secondly, the project will put forward guidelines to shape a new sustainable debt collection process. Both outcomes will contribute significantly to the elaboration of an efficient and ethical debt collection approach in Belgium and the EU.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Vanlerberghe Beatrix
• Co-promoter: Rutten Stefan
• Co-promoter: Vandenhole Wouter
• Co-promoter: Vanmeenen Melissa

Research team(s)

• Law Enforcement

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This project creates the institutional framework among seven research institutions to further consolidate the international Moot Court Competition on EU private international law and to further strenghthen judicial training in this area of the law. The project hopes to achieve the following objectives: - Consolidation, further improvement and expansion of a pan-European and international Moot Court Competition on EU private international law; - Increased awareness of EU private international law among students, legal professionals and academics; - Increased knowledge of students and junior legal professionals (judges trainees in particular) in EU private international law; - Opportunities for students and junior legal professionals (judges trainees in particular) to gain practical experience with the application of EU private international law; - Increased knowledge of EU private international law; - More efficiency and consistency in the interpretation and application of EU private international law, both within the EU and beyond; - Coordinated teaching, mutual learning, colloboration and enlarged networks for those concerned with the correct and consistent application of EU private international law instruments.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Pertegas Marta
• Co-promoter: Kruger Thalia
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Rutten Stefan

Research team(s)

• Law and Development

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The project relates to the procedural justice in Online Dispute Resolution (ODR). ODR was heralded as a solution for certain classes of disputes that were not otherwise appropriately addressed, and as a means for introducing efficiency and new qualities into the practice of dispute resolution, such as optimization of win-win solutions. The question is, has ODR actually delivered on those promises? To answer this question, a critical look at the current ODR landscape is needed. A litmus test for the quality of ODR mechanisms of today is their delivery of procedural justice. Relying on the existing practices, this project aims to explore the ways to ensure procedural justice in three most common ODR processes presently, namely online negotiation, mediation and arbitration. The project will follow a multi-method methodology and will combine doctrinal analysis with empirical research. It will start by examining the notion of procedural justice in ODR and how it can be measured. The empirical part of the project will involve mapping the existing and active ODR providers globally (the amount of which is not expected to exceed one hundred) and exploring how they ensure procedural justice in online negotiation, mediation and arbitration. Finally, relying on the collected doctrinal and empirical data, the project will evaluate the key criteria for ensuring procedural justice in online negotiation, mediation and arbitration. By examining the issue of the procedural justice in ODR, the project will partially fill the existing void within the academic research on the implications of technology for procedural justice theory. By mapping active ODR providers globally and identifying ODR processes that they provide, the project will remedy the current absence of any up-to-date information on these issues. Thereby, the project will make a significant and original contribution to the growing body of literature on ODR. In addition, it will help increase awareness of the general public about the ways ODR providers ensure procedural justice in online negotiation, mediation and arbitration. ODR providers can benefit from the project's results by aligning their procedural justice standards with the identified key criteria. In this way, the project will boost the public's confidence in the fairness of the provided ODR processes, a paramount condition for the development of ODR in the future.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Rutten Stefan
• Co-promoter: Nigmatullina Dilyara
• Co-promoter: Vanlerberghe Beatrix
• Fellow: Beretta Rachele

Research team(s)

• Law Enforcement

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

This research project concerns the question of the current role of the Belgian Supreme Court, also in the light of the judicial dialogue with other (European) supreme courts, and what this role should ideally be. In order to answer the main research question, the research starts with an analysis of the legislation and doctrine on the current role and functioning of the Belgian Supreme Court, also in the light of the interaction of other (European) supreme courts, such as the Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. A similar analysis will be carried out for the French, the Dutch and the German supreme court. From this classical legal and comparative law research, a general theoretical framework can be outlined on the role and functioning of the supreme courts mentioned above. Furthermore, the research project aims to investigate how the judicial dialogue between the supreme courts mentioned above (national versus European) takes place in practice and what the influence of this dialogue is on national case law. On the basis of a case study of judgments from the court of cassation in Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany, it will be assessed to what extent the supreme courts deal with the case law of the (European) supreme courts. Three formal instruments of judicial dialogue will be used as a starting point: (1) the preliminary ruling procedure, (2) implicit and explicit reference to case law of other courts and (3) the motivation of judicial decisions. From the theoretical framework, an attempt will further be made to draw up a list of measures, implemented or not, formulated to reform the specific supreme court . The theoretical framework, the analysis of case law and the drawn up list will subsequently form the basis of empirical research, in which the role of the Belgian Supreme Court will be tested against the findings of the magistrates and lawyers from practice. Finally, this multi-methodological study will attempt to formulate recommendations in order to push the current role of the Belgian Supreme Court in the direction of the role it should ideally fulfil in practice, also in order to function as an ideal interlocutor in a layered legal landscape.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Rutten Stefan
• Co-promoter: Vanlerberghe Beatrix

Research team(s)

• Law Enforcement

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

The Project analyses the application of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and is set to provide recommendations on how to achieve a greater consistency in the international civil procedure instruments of the EU to enhance legal certainty, predictability and access to justice in cross border legal transactions. Global legislative developments will also be considered.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Pertegas Marta
• Co-promoter: Kruger Thalia
• Co-promoter: Meeusen Johan
• Co-promoter: Rutten Stefan

Research team(s)

• Law and Development

Project website

Project type(s)

• Research Project

Abstract

Effective justice systems play a crucial role for upholding the rule of law and the European Union's fundamental values. Quality, independence and efficiency are some of the essential parameters of an 'effective justice system' and are used in the EU Justice Scoreboard to analyze the functioning of all EU Member States' judicial systems. Being the cassation court, the Supreme Courts' essential task is to safeguard legal certainty and legal uniformity and to contribute to the development of law. Supreme Courts are thus a key factor in an effective justice system. Since the Supreme Courts act as Union courts when applying EU law, they also play an important role in the process of coherent application of EU law. Together with the Supreme Court of Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania and Spain, as well as with the University of Ljubljana, the University of Antwerp analyzes the performance of the Supreme Courts in the European Union. The research project focuses on the following questions, all related to the management of the Supreme Courts: 1. How can (Supreme) Courts contribute to legal certainty , consistency and transparency of the law? Embedded within this first research question is the sub-question how to enhance the institutional capacity of Supreme Courts' research and documentation units, which are generally charged with the twofold task of analytical overview of the Supreme Courts case law, as well as in assisting the judges with research. Particular attention will be paid to the research and documentation units' contribution to the correct implementation of EU law. 2. How can the (Supreme) Courts' management be improved and backlogs be reduced in order to guarantee an effective and timely protection of rights? The research will concentrate on best practices in Member States to improve the functioning of the management systems of (Supreme) Courts, with particular attention being paid to streamlined case handling and in-house coordination. 3. How can the (Supreme) Courts' communication strategies with the public be improved? This priority is aimed both at communication with the parties (access of the parties to the case file) and with the general public (information and education of the public). 4. What is the role of the Supreme Courts in the work of the national Councils of Judiciary? More broadly the research project will make a SWOT analysis of the Councils for the Judiciaries' as a crucial actor for enhancing and sustaining the quality of the judicial system. In order to gather and collect the best practices for managing Supreme Courts, the state of the art of the existing research will be established. This desk research will be supplemented by empirical research. A survey has been sent to all Supreme Courts of the European Union. Together with the information collected during study visits, case studies and the desk research, the information of the surveys will be analyzed and used to prepare this best practice guide for managing Supreme Courts. Better court management and the improvement of the transparency of the Supreme Courts' work will not only lead to more efficient case handling, but will also raise trust of civil society and improve the image of Supreme Courts as reliable and user-friendly institutions. The smooth assignment and quicker examination of cases will also lead to better implementation of EU law. By drafting a best practice guide for managing Supreme Courts this research project aims to increase the administrative and judicial capacity of the Supreme Courts and thus increasing the effectiveness of judicial systems. This best practice guide will be presented and distributed to all Supreme Courts of the European Union in April 2017 and will be a useful tool for Supreme Courts to improve their management.

Researcher(s)

• Promoter: Rutten Stefan
• Co-promoter: Hubeau Bernard
• Co-promoter: Popelier Patricia

Research team(s)

• Law Enforcement

Project type(s)

• Research Project