INTRODUCTION

There have been significant developments since the European Court of Justice (hereinafter: ECJ) established the doctrine of procedural autonomy and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence restricting the scope of this doctrine. The doctrine had roots in time, when EU law was concerned The doctrine had roots in time, when EU law was concerned primarily with rights in substantive law and the doctrine of procedural autonomy was focused on the issue of how (substantive) rights, existing under EU law, are enforced in proceedings in national courts, pursuant to national procedural law. Nowadays however, the EU law itself – although often in a fragmented and in sectoral manner – extends deep into the domain of procedural law. Important EU instruments which affect civil procedure, perhaps even to a greater extent than the ‘judicial co-operation in civil matters’ can be found in those areas of EU law that are primarily concerned with substantive, not procedural law (e.g. alternative dispute resolution of consumer disputes, unfair contract terms in consumer contracts, collective redress, effective protection of IP rights, private enforcement of antitrust). In addition, starting with the adoption of so-called ‘second generation regulations’ even the core area of European civil procedure (i.e. judicial cooperation in civil matters) has slowly started to detach itself from traditional domains of international private law. Certain – though still fragmented – areas of ‘pure’ civil procedure are now subject to regulation on the community level. These developments do not per se diminish importance of procedural autonomy of Member States, in casu Slovenia, however the interface between EU law and national procedural law becomes more far reaching and more complex, thus opening doors for more uncertainty and tensions. Undoubtedly, the influence of EU law on Slovenian civil procedure is growing. This however does not mean that the issue of procedural autonomy has itself gained sufficient attention in Slovenian academic circles or in case law of Slovenian courts. In fact, the author could not find one single source, either in legal writing (either by authors specialising on the EU law or by authors specialising in civil procedure) or in case law even mentioning the issue of ‘procedural autonomy’. Though issues relating to the interface between national civil procedure law and EU civil procedure have been discussed, they have focused on different, usually more pragmatic aspects.