kjell å modéer rule: The University and the Court of Appeal. Tartu University is still around, the high court however disappeared with the procedural reform 1889 during the Russian rule. The successive change from Swedish to Russian organization of the court is described as a not only political but also as a professional development. Professor of Comparative Legal History at Helsinki University, Heikki Pihlajamäki, covered theFinnish Courts of Appeal fromEarly-modern to Modern Times – a theme he has researched substantially as regards not only theHelsinki Court of Appeal but also the Livonian Court of Appeal at Tartu, based on rediscovered records.31 The history of the Swedish courts of appeal was given by the associate professor of procedural law at Uppsala University, Eric Bylander. In 2006 he defended his dissertation onThe Principle of Orality: ALegal Study of Procedural Communication Forms in Swedish Law.32 This doctoral thesis examined different forms of procedural communication available to the Swedish courts. The choice traditionally stood between oral and written procedure. Today the procedure in the general courts is dominated by the principle of orality, while in the administrative courts, procedure chiefly takes the written form. The historic conditions of the procedural communication forms were well articulated in his dissertation and his paper at the conference to a great extent referred to this his scholarly work. The papers given by the East-Scandinavian Swedish and Finnish scholars, however, are not included in this volume, but the presentations of the history of the courts of appeal in the West-Scandinavian countries are fascinating contributions to the volume Professor of legal history Per Andersen, Faculty of Law, Århus University, Denmark, gave a survey on theDanish Courts of Appeal fromEarly-Modern toModern Times and his Norwegian colleague professor Sören Koch, Faculty of Law, Bergen University, Norway, filled in with a substantial article on the Courts of Appeal in Norway. The two articles are giving important not only national perspectives on the courts of appeal, but also explaining the differences in ju31 Pihlajamäki, Heikki, 2017. 32 Bylander, Eric, 2006. 25
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=