Lis Pendens in the Albanian Civil Procedural Code in the light of the European legislation

by, Renata KAU, PhD & Dr. Jonida GJIKA

Abstract

Justice reform in Albania dates back to 2014 and it is still in progress. It has the scope to reform the justice system by affecting all aspects of its organization, functioning and administration in order to strengthen and increase the independence of the justice system in Albania. Among other things, this reform approved Law 38/2017 on some additions and amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania, which aims to improve the access to justice, the adjudication of cases within  a reasonable time and the non-delay of cases. In fact, the innovations of this law are numerous, so for this paper it has been selected to analyze an institute which from the point of view of the authors is important such as the Lis Pendens. This institute aims to regulate a situation of simultaneous pending of two proceedings with the identity of the parts, object and title that have been brought before the courts of different states. The Albanian Civil Procedural Code lacks a proper definition of international Lis Pendens, but it is regulated lately in the provision of article 38 of this code, which by law no. 38/2017, has undergone relevant changes, to be object of analysis in this article. These changes are in line with those in the European legislation. Therefore, object of our analysis will be also the problems in the judicial practice regarding the competence of judges which brought the need for changes in the European discipline of Lis Pendens and were disciplined in the EU Regulation no. 1215/2012, which for the first-time regulated cases of litigation between Member States and third States. Finally, will be analyzed the effects of these changes in the international context and the impact they will have on the Albanian civil process.

How to cite: Kau, R., & Gjika, J. (2022). Lis Pendens in the Albanian civil procedural code in the light of the European legislation. Jus & Justicia, 16(2), 69–80.

https://doi.org/10.58944/oaeq8412