scholarly journals Udział biegłego w przesłuchaniu świadka w postępowaniu cywilnym – wybrane problemy

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 41-57
Author(s):  
Joanna Derlatka ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Regulation ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Expert Physician

In the light of the Act of 4 July 2019 about the amendment of the Act – Code of Civil Procedure and some other acts, many changes are introduced in the regulations on evidence in civil proceedings. The analysis focuses on presentation and assessment of the effects of changes contained in the Art. 272 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision provides for the introduction of participation of an expert in the hearing of a witness in civil proceedings. If there is doubt as to the ability to observe or recollect observations of a witness, the court may decide that the witness will testify with the attendance of an expert physician or psychologist, and the witness cannot oppose this. The provision is based on the current regulation of Art. 192 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the amendment enters into force, many problems arise regarding art. 272 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other new procedural solutions, such as omission of evidence or repetition of evidence proceedings.

scholarly journals Zastosowanie doktryny „owoców drzewa zatrutego” na gruncie polskiej procedury cywilnej

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 351-362
Author(s):  
Piotr Soroka ◽  
Magdalena Korkuś-Soroka
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Short Presentation

Artykuł krótko opisuje, czym jest doktryna „owoców drzewa zatrutego” i w jaki sposób może ona wpływać na przebieg procesu cywilnego. Ukazanie tej problematyki na gruncie orzecznictwa pozwala sformułować istotne wnioski, które powinny uwzględniać sądy, w sytuacjach gdy strony próbują wprowadzić do procesu nielegalnie uzyskany dowód. Brak regulacji w tej materii powoduje, że lukę tę musi wypełnić orzecznictwo i doktryna. Application of the „fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine in the Polish Civil ProcedurePolish civil procedure lacks a solution for evidence which was acquired by the parties illegally or in a manner which may stand in collision with good customs or with principles of social coexistence. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine has roots in criminal procedure but, on the other hand, it could be applied also in civil proceedings sadly, in Polish criminal procedure this doctrine is very limited. This article is a short presentation of the current views of Polish courts and jurisprudence on this matter, which are not consistent.

THE METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEMORIES OF MIKHAIL KONSTANTINOVICH TREUSHNIKOV)

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 22-33
Author(s):  
E.V. KUDRYAVTSEVA
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Legal Education ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
State University ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
Training Courses ◽  
Moscow State University

The article is dedicated to the memory of Mikhail Konstantinovich Treushnikov, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist, Head of the Department of Civil Procedure of the Law Faculty of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The article analyzes the methodology of teaching civil procedure, focuses on the methodology of lecturing, seminars, and game processes. Mikhail Konstantinovich paid great attention to the methodology of teaching civil procedure. The author of the article offers a study of the section “Methods of Teaching Law” from the book “Creative Search in the Science of Civil Procedure Law” by M.K. Treushnikov published in 2020. This section presents methodological recommendations on how to prepare and give lectures for newly elected judges at the republican training courses for legal officers on two subjects: “Preparation of civil cases for trial is a mandatory stage of the process”, “Types of evidence in civil proceedings”. The other two articles in this section are devoted to different issues. One is devoted to the methodology of teaching law in non-law universities (on the example of Moscow State University), the other is written on the basis of a speech “Traditions and Innovations in Legal Education” at the conference meeting of the heads of the departments of social sciences of the Lomonosov Moscow State University on 16 February 2007 and shows the role of departments in solving the problems of legal education.

30. Striking Out, Discontinuance, and Stays

2021 ◽  
pp. 324-335
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Civil Proceedings

This chapter discusses striking-out orders, discontinuance, and stays in civil proceedings. Rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court: that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. A party who realizes their case is doomed is often best advised to discontinue to prevent the accumulation of further costs, but often has to pay the costs of the other parties to date. Stays are temporary halts in proceedings, and can be granted for a range of reasons. A stay is normally lifted once the reason no longer applies.

30. Striking Out, Discontinuance, and Stays

2020 ◽  
pp. 322-333
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Civil Proceedings

This chapter discusses striking-out orders, discontinuance, and stays in civil proceedings. Rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court: that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. A party who realizes their case is doomed is often best advised to discontinue to prevent the accumulation of further costs, but often has to pay the costs of the other parties to date. Stays are temporary halts in proceedings, and can be granted for a range of reasons. A stay is normally lifted once the reason no longer applies.

30. Striking out, discontinuance, and stays

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Civil Proceedings

This chapter discusses striking-out orders, discontinuance, and stays in civil proceedings. Rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court: that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. A party who realizes their case is doomed is often best advised to discontinue to prevent the accumulation of further costs, but often has to pay the costs of the other parties to date. Stays are temporary halts in proceedings, and can be granted for a range of reasons. A stay is normally lifted once the reason no longer applies.

scholarly journals To the admissibility of the civil law exemption of property from arrest, imposed in the criminal proceedings: domestic and foreign experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 190-200
Author(s):  
Natalia Kashtanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Judicial Protection

The subject of paper deals with the legal nature of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property.Methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific dialectical methods of cognitionof objective reality of the legal processes and phenomena that allowed us to conduct anobjective assessment of the state of legislation and law enforcement practice in the proceduralaspects of the cancellation of the seizure of property in criminal proceedings of Russia.The results and scope of it’s application. It is submitted that the cancellation of the seizureof the property (or the individual limit) is allowed only on the grounds and in the mannerprescribed by the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. However, the studyfound serious contradictions in the application of the relevant law. In particular, cases inwhich the question of exemption of property from arrest (exclusion from the inventory),imposed in the criminal case was resolved in a civil procedure that, in the opinion of theauthor of the publication, is extremely unacceptable.On the stated issues topics analyzes opinions of scientists who say that the dispute aboutthe release of impounded property may be allowed in civil proceedings, including pendingresolution of the criminal case on the merits. The author strongly disagrees with this positionand supports those experts who argue that the filing of a claim for exemption of propertyfrom arrest (exclusion from the inventory) the reviewed judicial act of imposing of arrestwithout recognition per se invalid. In this regard, the author cites the legal position ofthe constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, from which clearly follows that of theright of everyone to judicial protection does not imply the possibility of choice of the citizenat its discretion, techniques and procedures of judicial protection, since the features of suchjudicial protection is defined in specific Federal laws.The author analyzes and appreciates Kazakhstan's experience of legal regulation of the permissibilityof filing a civil claim for exemption of property from seizure imposed in criminalproceedings. The author notes that the new civil procedural legislation of the Republic ofKazakhstan, which came into force from 01 January 2016, clearly captures that considerationin the civil proceedings are not subject to claims for exemption of property from seizureby the criminal prosecution body.Conclusions. Necessity of amendment to article 422 of the Civil Procedure Code of Russia:this article should not apply to cases of application of measures of criminal procedural compulsionin the form of seizure of property. Among other things, the author proposed additionsto part 9 of article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia.

30. Striking Out, Discontinuance, and Stays

2019 ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Civil Proceedings

This chapter discusses striking-out orders, discontinuance, and stays in civil proceedings. Rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court: that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. A party who realizes their case is doomed is often best advised to discontinue to prevent the accumulation of further costs, but often has to pay the costs of the other parties to date. Stays are temporary halts in proceedings, and can be granted for a range of reasons. A stay is normally lifted once the reason no longer applies.

scholarly journals UDZIAŁ OSÓB NIEUPRAWNIONYCH W WYDANIU ORZECZENIA W POSTĘPOWANIU CYWILNYM - UWAGI NA TLE D.1,14,3 I D.41,3,44 PR.

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Bartosz Szolc-Nartowski
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Polish Law

Participation of Unauthorised Persons in Issuance of Decisions in Civil Proceedings - Remarks on the Basis D. 1,14,3 and D. 41,3,44 pr.SummaryAccording to Polish civil procedure a sentence given by an unauthorized person is invalid. This was not always the case in ancien Roman law. Ulpianus declared that when a slave, who escaped from his master, became a praetor, his acts were valid. He took into consideration serious problems of those who had put their trust in the praetor’s office as well as the respect for humanitas. A basic common sense requires that what was well decided, should be considered valid. According to the author, Ulpianus realized that the rule of ius civile which determined the requirements for entering in a praetor’s duties had the character of a guarantee. If the purpose, for which this rule was established, was achieved, such acts should be accepted as valid.The question arises whether that approach could be applied to contemporary cases of iudex incompetens. Furthermore, whether it would be justifiable to extend this solution to other - not only procedural – but also material, guarantee rules?The answer is not easy. In D. 41,3,44 pr., a pater familias conducted the procedure of adrogation (adoption) improperly. Papinianus decided that, although pater familias made a justifiable mistake, all that the son enacted in the name of the father, was invalid. Nevertheless a different rule, as the jurist says in D. 41,3,44 pr., must be observed in the case of homo liber bona fide serviens - a person, who being unaware of his free man status, served as a slave. Actions taken by such a person were valid (the purchaser of a slave had to be protected), since transactions of that kind happened very often. More importantly, any other solution would be against the public interest. O n the other hand, it was very rare for a pater familias to wrongly adrogate, therefore the example of pater familias did not create a general rule.It seems quite difficult to indicate one principle which could be applied to all the guarantee rules. As far as the case of an unauthorized person giving sentence is concerned, the Roman private law shows that the regard for the public interest may sometimes justify solutions different from those preferred by Polish law.

scholarly journals Model zażalenia w świetle nowelizacji Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego z 4 lipca 2019 r.

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 136-149
Author(s):  
Anna Kościółek ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Similar Solution ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Legislative Changes

The following paper includes an analysis of the model of a complaint in the polish civil proceedings. This issue is discussed especially in the light of essential legislative changes introduced by the Act of 4 July 2019 amending the Act – the Code of Civil Procedure and some other acts. These changes fundamentally altered the model for reviewing court decisions in incidental matters, which are not conclusive for the entire proceedings. The Act, in particular, significantly limited the catalogue of decisions of courts of first instance which can be appealed againts to the court of second instance, reshaping this particular model of control into an exception to the simultaneously introduced principle of examining a complaint by different judges of the same court. On the other hand, the act expanded the scope of decisions of courts of second instance which are examined by different judges of the same court. A similar solution was introduced also in in the enforcement proceedings. Therefore, in the current legal status, majority of incidental decisions in civil proceedings has been covered by the so called horizontal complaint. In consequence, a complaint lost its devolutive nature and thus ceased to be an appelate messure.

30. Striking out, discontinuance, and stays

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Sime
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Civil Proceedings

This chapter discusses striking-out orders, discontinuance, and stays in civil proceedings. Rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court: that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. A party who realizes their case is doomed is often best advised to discontinue to prevent the accumulation of further costs, but often has to pay the costs of the other parties to date. Stays are temporary halts in proceedings, and can be granted for a range of reasons. A stay is normally lifted once the reason no longer applies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document