The fundamental principles of civil procedure and the reasonableness of the time of a trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.142.141022Keywords:
fundamental principles of civil procedure, principles of civil procedural law, reasonableness of the time of a trial, reasonable time, evaluative concepts, legal axiomsAbstract
In the article "the fundamental principles of civil procedure" and " the principles of civil procedural law" are considered as synonyms. They are understood as normatively fixed requirements that reflect the values of civil procedural law, reproduce the standards of fair trial and determine the procedure of a trial. Such requirements should be pursued by the court and other participants of civil procedure because they have general, stable and imperative nature and perform regulatory and interpretative functions in relation to ordinary rules of civil procedural law. The possibility to classify the requirement about "reasonableness of the time of a trial" as an interdisciplinary principle of judicial procedure is called into question because the lack of a unified approach to its regulation. Taking into account the provisions of the current procedural legislation and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the author proposes to interpret this requirement in three ways: 1) as a convention requirement arising from para. 1 art. 6 ECHR; 2) as a requirement for a general time of a trial, which constitutes an indicator of the effectiveness of protection of violated, unrecognized or disputed rights, freedoms and interests (p. 10 p. 3 art. 2 CPC); 3) as a requirement for the time limits of procedural actions in specific cases (art. 121 of the CPC). At the same time, as a requirement for a general time of a trial "the reasonableness of the time of a trial" is an evaluative concept. It cannot be understood as a fundamental principle of civil procedure. In its ontological nature, it is a legal axiom that reproduces the ideal model for the administration of justice and considered to be a tool for realization of the task of timely trial.
References
Hroshevyi, Yu.M., Tatsii, V.Ya., Tumaniants, A.R. (2013). Kryminalnyi protses: pidruchnyk / V.Ya. Tatsii, Yu.M. Hroshevoi, O.V. Kaplina, O.H. Shylo (Eds.). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Chechina, N.A. (2004). Osnovnye napravlenija razvitija nauki sovetskogo grazhdanskogo processual'nogo prava. Izbrannye trudy po grazhdanskomu processu. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel'skij Dom S.-Peterb. Gos. un-ta. P. 409–520 [in Russian].
Komarov, V.V., Bihun, V.A., Barankova, V.V. at al. (2011). Kurs tsyvilnoho protsesu: pidruchnyk / V.V. Komarov (Ed.). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Voronov, A.F. (2009) Principy grazhdanskogo processa: proshloe, nastojashhee, budushhee.Moscow: Izdatel'skij Dom «Gorodec» [in Russian].
Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy (z dod. i dopov.). (2005). / V. T. Busel (Ed.). Kyiv: Irpin: VTF «Perun» [in Ukrainian].
Ozhegov, S.I. (1981). Slovar' russkogo jazyka: Ok. 57000 slov / Pod red. dokt. filol. nauk, prof. N.Ju. Shvedovoj. 13-e izd., ispr. Moskva: Rus. Jaz. [in Russian].
Dal', V. (1982). Tolkovyj slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo jazyka: T. 1-4..Moscow: Rus. jaz. T. 3. P [in Russian]
Shtefan, M.Y. (2005) Tsyvilne protsesualne pravo Ukrainy: Akademichnyi kurs: Pidruch. dlia stud. yuryd. spets. vyshch. navch. zakl. Kyiv: Kontsern «Vydavnychyi Dim «In Yure» [in Ukrainian].
Problemy nauki grazhdanskogo processual'nogo prava / V.V. Komarov, V.A. Bigun, V.V. Barankova; pod red. prof. V.V. Komarova. (2002) Har'kov: Pravo [in Russian].
Borisov, G.A. (1977). Obshhie principy socialisticheskogo stroja i sovetskoe pravo. Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis. Kharkov [in Russian].
Pohrebniak, S.P. (2008) Osnovopolozhni pryntsypy prava (zmistovna kharakterystyka). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Tkachuk, O.S. (2016). Problemy realizatsii sudovoi vlady u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Alekseev, S.S. (2001). Voshozhdenie k pravu. Poiski i reshenija. Moscow: Norma [in Russian].
Sahnova, T.V. (2008) Kurs grazhdanskogo processa: teoreticheskie nachala i osnovnye instituty. Moscow: Volters Kluver [in Russian].
Bulgakov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 59894, 22 March 2005.
Gontarenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 7690/03, 29 May 2007.
Sakara, N.Yu. (2014). Pro pravovu pryrodu «rozumnoho stroku» sudovoho rozghliadu. Yuryst Ukrainy – Lawyer of Ukraine, 3 (28), 84–91 [in Ukrainian].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Наталія Юріївна Сакара
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.