scholarly journals Legal Disclaimer of Civil Procedures in Rules as a Failure to Achieve Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Achmad Rifai ◽  
Agus Tri Purwandi
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedures

LAWYER AS A SUBJECT OF PROFESSIONAL LEGAL AID IN CIVIL PROCEDURE OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-126
Author(s):  
M.V. SHPAK
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Identical Structure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Science ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
Civil Procedures

The revised version of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine was a consequence of the implementation of ideas on the unification of civil procedures. Now the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, the Economic Procedure Code of Ukraine have largely received an identical structure with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is noteworthy that the aforementioned legislative acts have adopted a unified approach by the legislator, which has been enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, regarding the implementation of the so-called “advocate monopoly” in providing legal assistance to the participants of a muzzle considered by a court. “Advocate monopoly” was not perceived unambiguously in legal science. The approaches to this phenomenon are described in the article. Particularly it is noted a change in the positions of the subjects of the legislative initiative regarding the change of wearing and the legislative consolidation of the “advocate monopoly” in the direction of its restriction. Some ideas are assessed, which are set out in the draft Law of Ukraine No. 1013 “On Amending the Constitution of Ukraine (Regarding the Abolition of the Lawyer Monopoly)” dated 29 August 2019. Conclusions are given regarding the possible consequences if legislative novelties come into force that are proposed in the draft Law of Ukraine No. 1013 “On Amending the Constitution of Ukraine (Regarding the Abolition of the Lawyer Monopoly)” dated 29 August 2019. It is alleged that the abolition of the so-called “advocate monopoly” will positively affect the development of free law help in Ukraine. The author offers to provide new provisions to the content of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which will address in more detail the issue of participation of representatives in civil procedure.

COLLECTIVE REDRESS PROCEDURES–EUROPEAN DEBATES

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Geraint Howells
Keyword(s):  
Policy Development ◽  
National Level ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Consumer Organizations ◽  
Civil Procedures ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCollective redress mechanisms for consumer claims seek both to allow legal systems to accommodate mass litigation without being overwhelmed and to enable litigation to be viable where individual claims would not be economic. The article maps a number of recent reforms and reform proposals relating to consumer collective redress at national level and comments on EU developments. It notes that there is insufficient recognition of the differences between schemes geared at managing mass litigation as opposed to those aimed at facilitating otherwise non-viable claims. There are however signs that a European style of collective redress procedure is developing, which emphasize the role of public authorities and consumer organizations as gatekeepers to collective redress. The EU is unlikely to be able to impose collective redress procedures on national civil procedures, but the EU could prompt Member States to reflect on the need for national reforms. There may be limited scope for an EU mechanism to address the problem of individually non-viable consumer claims. This would however have to address certain fundamental issues such as the opt-out mechanism, cy-près distribution and funding if consumer organizations are to be encouraged to bring such actions. At a legal doctrinal level, it is interesting to note the influence of comparative studies on policy development within Member States as well as at the EU level.

scholarly journals PERMOHONAN UPAYA HUKUM PENINJAUAN KEMBALI KEDUA KALI BERBASIS KEADILAN DAN KEPASTIAN HUKUM MENUJU PEMBAHARUAN HUKUM ACARA PERDATA

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herri Swantoro ◽  
Efa Laela Fakhriah ◽  
Isis Ikhwansyah
Keyword(s):  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Civil Procedures

AbstractCivil case request civil request limitation ratio legis could only be done once in order to create legal certainty as an effort to establish law and justice as law enforcer to maintain, enforce, and implement the norms in law. The concept of civil matters reconsideration petition settlement that promotes fairness and legal certainty in order to update the National Civil Procedures Law is second, to different parties in the case which request civil not yet conducted, the request civil is final and binding. Request civil is only allowed against yudex factie verdict and the application of the model through a combination of restriction and discreation procedural model.IntisariRatio legis pembatasan permohonan upaya hukum PK perkara perdata hanya dapat dilakukan satu kali demi mewujudkan kepastian hukum sebagai upaya pembentuk undang-undang dan peradilan sebagai penegak hukum untuk menjaga, menegakan dan menjalankan ketentuan norma dalam undang-undang. Konsep pengaturan permohonan PK perkara perdata berbasis keadilan dan kepastian hukum dalam rangka pembaruan hukum acara perdata nasional adalah pemberian PK kedua kepada pihak berbeda dalam perkara yang belum melakukan PK serta PK ini bersifat final dan mengikat, Peninjauan Kembali hanya diperbolehkan terhadap putusan judex factie dan penerapan model kombinasi antara pembatasan melalui model prosedural dan diskresional.

scholarly journals Legal and historical overview of the protection of possession in Serbian law

2020 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 430-457
Author(s):  
Biljana Gavrilović
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
The People ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Many ◽  
Kingdom Of Yugoslavia ◽  
Civil Procedures

The subject of this analysis are the mechanisms of possession according to the Serbian Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure from 1929, during the period between 1844 and 1941. The development of the protection of possession during this period is mostly reflected in the fact that possession in the Principality of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbia was protected, first of all, by means of criminal justice, while in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, this role was played by civil law. Although possession and its protection in the Principality of Serbia and the Kingdom of Serbia were also regulated by civil-law norms, the people were still relying on the criminal justice system to get protection. Beside the many ambiguities in the Serbian Civil Code related to it, the protection of possession was not regulated separately from standard civil procedures in the Code of Civil Procedure from 1865. Thus, only when the Yugoslav Code of Civil Procedure went into effect did possession get proper, civil-law protection on the territory of Serbia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document