scholarly journals A SENTENÇA DE MÉRITO PROLATADA COM A PRETERIÇÃO DO(S) LITISCONSORTE(S) NECESSÁRIO(S) UNITÁRIO(S): UMA ANÁLISE SOB A ÓTICA DOS PLANOS DOS ATOS PROCESSUAIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Lisiane Beatriz Fröhlich ◽  
Jonathan Iovane De Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Moment

RESUMOO presente estudo tem como objetivo geral compreender em qual dos planos dos atos processuais – existência, validade ou eficácia – reside o defeito que acomete a sentença de mérito prolatada com a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). A partir dos resultados obtidos com a pesquisa, constatou-se que, para o alcance de uma conclusão satisfatória a seu respeito, é imprescindível a verificação do momento em que é alegada a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). Assim, concluiu-se que, na eventualidade de a alegação ocorrer anteriormente ao trânsito em julgado, o defeito estará situado no plano da validade, tratando-se de uma nulidade absoluta. Por outro lado, após o trânsito em julgado, o que remanesce é o vício no plano da eficácia. Dessa forma, observa-se que a atual legislação processual civil não é incorreta, mas incompleta e carente de precisão. Isso porque, apesar da superlativa importância da definição do momento em que se está analisando o vício, o Código de Processo Civil de 2015 é omisso com relação a esse aspecto, potencializando as dúvidas a respeito do tema. Por fim, verificou-se que, devido à gravidade do defeito que acomete essa sentença – oriunda, sobretudo, da ofensa aos princípios constitucionais –, é possível que qualquer interessado o alegue. Além disso, pelos mesmos motivos, as vias processuais admissíveis para combater esse vício são variadas, podendo ser manejada a ação rescisória, a impugnação ao cumprimento de sentença, a querela nullitatis insanabilis ou, ainda, qualquer outro meio idôneo e compatível com a situação concreta.Palavras-chave: Litisconsórcio necessário unitário. Sentença de mérito. Inexistência. Invalidade. Ineficácia. ABSTRACTThe purpose of the present study is to understand in which of the plans of procedural acts – existence, validity or efficacy – is situated the defect that affects the judgment of merit prolated with the pretermission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. From the results obtained with the research, it was verified that, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion about it, it is essential to verify the moment when is alleged the omission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. Thus, it was concluded that, if the claim occurs before it is formed the res judicata, the defect is situated in the validity plan, being an absolute nullity. On the other hand, after the res judicata is formed, what remains is the inefficacy. Therefore, it was verified that the current civil procedural law is not incorrect, but incomplete and lacking precision. This is because, in spite of the superlative importance of defining which moment the defect is being analyzed, the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015 do not consider this aspect, potentializing doubts about the issue. Finally, it was discovered that, because of the severity of the defect that affects this veredict – originated, principally, from the offense to the constitutional principles – it is possible that any interested subject of the process can claim it. Besides that, for the same reasons, it is admitted the use of several procedural means to combat this decision, like the rescissory action, the enforcement’s impugnment of the judgment, the querela nullitatis insanabilis or any other suitable procedural means and compatible with the specific situation.Keywords: Necessary unitary joinder of parties. Judgment of merit. Inexistence. Invalidity. Inefficacy.

scholarly journals GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL JURISDICTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (86) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nataliia Ryzhenko ◽  
◽  
Olena Korolova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Definition Of

From the moment of becoming valid the law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Commercial procedural code of Ukraine, Civil procedural code of Ukraine the Code of administrative procedure of Ukraine and other legislative acts» of 3 October 2017 jurisdiction of courts courts is defined through the concept of «jurisdiction». This article considers the practical and theoretical significance of the amendments made by this legislative act to the current Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. The significance of civil jurisdiction and its classification are revealed. To date, the science of civil procedural law has not developed a unified approach to the definition of «jurisdiction» and «civil jurisdiction». With regard to substantive and subjective jurisdiction, it is emphasized that these aspects should be taken into account together. Territorial jurisdiction is defined in the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine as jurisdiction. The instance jurisdiction determines the scope of powers of the court of each link of the judicial system of Ukraine, and the territorial (jurisdiction) determines the limits of powers between courts within one judicial link to hear cases in the first instance. In general, the rules of territorial jurisdiction are less strict than the rules of substantive jurisdiction, as the level of the court is considered appropriate, but violations of the rules of territorial jurisdiction may create additional inconveniences, which, however, usually do not objectively affect the content of the decision. The difficulty of establishing the jurisdiction of the court at this stage of updating the judicial system of Ukraine is due to significant changes in procedural law. The process of harmonization of procedural legislation has contributed to the consolidation of a single conceptual apparatus, which has so far been used mostly at the theoretical level. Thus, at the legislative level, the jurisdiction of the courts of Ukraine is determined exclusively by the jurisdiction, which in the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine is divided into substantive and subjective, instance, territorial. However, the analyzed provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine demonstrate the need to further improve the rules of civil jurisdiction.

scholarly journals LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE RULE OF THE NEW CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE OF AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER OBTAINED BEFORE ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-27
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana DOMOCOȘ
Keyword(s):  
Coercive Force ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In a case, the court of appeal have interpreted the provisions of the law regarding the enforceable judgments delivered at first instance, with the right of appeal, or those in respect of which the parties agreed to directly exercise the appeal, when those interested or harmed by the enforcement can require the cancellation of the enforcement documents drawn up by violation of the legal provisions. The jurisprudence is not unanimous to consider the enforceability of the final civil decision is, however, a temporary one, until it is confirmed by the court of appeal, and it is removed when the court of appeal gives a contrary approach. One of the roles of the limitation is to provide the security of legal relationships, because after the expiry of the limitation period the debtor is satisfied that it can no longer be enforced, and the creditor knows that he no longer benefits from the coercive force of the state in order to recover his debt. On the other hand, to oblige the creditor to enforce a temporarily enforceable decision, about which he has no certainty that it will be upheld on appeal, means violating the very principle of the security of legal relationships, which the legislator intended to protect.

scholarly journals A question of procedural law: the principle of the inalterable nature of a tried case and the violation of EU law

2014 ◽  
pp. 101-112
Author(s):  
João Ramos Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Time Limit ◽  
The Other ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The One

The reform operated in the regime of civil appeals by the Decree-law 303/2007, from 24 August 2007, introduced a new basis for an extraordinary appeal for review. This paper states our views on the (in)conformity with EU law of the solution put forward by the Portuguese legislator in order to ensure, on the one hand, the legal certainty and, on the other hand, the validity (here entailed in the jurisprudence of the CJEU), by establishing for the extraordinary appeal for review a maximum preclusion time limit of five years from the moment the ruling under review is passed, in cases in which the decision was made by a court of last resort, that failed to fulfill its obligation to ask for a preliminary ruling.

ASAS TERBUKA UNTUK UMUM DAN KEHADIRAN FISIK PARA PIHAK DALAM SIDANG DI PENGADILAN NEGERI PASCA PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-250
Author(s):  
Bernadette M Waluyo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Basic Principle ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
District Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Court Proceedings

The Indonesian Supreme Court, in response to the information era, modernizes the civil procedural rules at the district court level.  This is done by issuing Supreme Court Regulation no. 1 of 2019 re. Administration of Justice at Civil Law Courts and Electronic-Court Proceedings. Undoubtedly, modernization of existing rules on the administration of justice is much needed.  On the other hand, these changes may violate a number of procedural civil law principles.  The author argues, from a civil procedural law perspective, that the above Supreme Court regulation violates the basic principle of transparency of court proceedings and physical attendance at court proceedings. 

Part I The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Litigation, 1 The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Domestic Laws

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Schaffstein Silja
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Other Hand

This chapter analyses and compares the application of the res judicata doctrine in common and civil law countries. Res judicata is the principle that a matter may not, generally, be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. The doctrine of res judicata is well established in common law jurisdictions, and allows for several res judicata pleas, namely the plea of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, former recovery, or abuse of process. On the other hand, the doctrine of res judicata in civil law countries recognises only one plea. In France, for instance, the doctrine of res judicata is referred to as ‘autorité de chose jugxée’. A judgment obtains ‘autorité de chose jugée’ when it is rendered, whether or not a means of recourse is available against the judgment.

Besondere Typen der Widerklage

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annalena Hanke
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law

This highly significant work in terms of litigation practice critically examines the case law of Germany’s highest courts with regard to third-party counterclaims. In particular, it discusses the recognition of third-party counterclaims as an independent institution of procedural law. This work solves the problems that arise in this respect, above all the question of local jurisdiction, using the existing legally regulated instruments of procedural law. Due to the actual lack of the presupposed loophole in the regulations, it therefore calls into question both the analogous application of § 33 of Germany’s civil procedure code (Zivilprozessordnung) and the judicial development of the law in this area.

scholarly journals Dissenting Opinion dan Concurring Opinion dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-324
Author(s):  
Haidar Adam
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Difference

Abstract: This article discusses about dissenting opinion and concurring opinion in the decision of the Constitutional Court. Law enforcement can be done through the Constitutional Court in the form of law judicial review. The issue of dissenting opinion is regulated through Law No. 24 Year 2003 and Constitutional Court Regulation No. 6 of PMK Year 2005 concerning Procedural Law of Tests of Act. The phrase used in the Constitutional Court Law is “the different opinion of the judiciary members". The different opinion, according to Jimly, is divided into two namely dissenting opinion and concurrent opinion. A verdict is considered concurring if there is an argument by a member of the panel of judges that is different from that of the other members of the judiciary but it does not affect the difference of the decision. On the other hand, a decision is said to be dissenting if the opinion of a member of the panel of judges is different from that of the majority of the other members of the panel of judges and the difference is not merely in the case of reasoning but to touching on the verdict. Keywords: Dissenting opinion, concurring opinion, the court constitution’s decision. Abstrak: Penegakan hukum dapat dilakukan melalui pengadilan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam bentuk pengujian terhadap undang-undang. Masalah dissenting opinion diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 24 Tahun 2003 dan Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 6 PMK Tahun 2005 tentang Hukum Acara Pengujian Undang Undang. Frase yang dipakai dalam UUMK adalah “pendapat anggota majelis hakim yang berbeda”. Pendapat yang berbeda menurut Jimly, dibedakan menjadi dua yaitu dissenting opinion dan concurrent opinion. Suatu putusan dianggap sebagai concurring apabila terdapat argumentasi anggota majelis hakim yang berbeda dengan mayoritas anggota majelis hakim yang lain, namun tidak berimbas pada perbedaan amar putusan. Di sisi lain, suatu putusan dikatakan dissenting, jika pendapat suatu anggota majelis hakim berbeda dengan pendapat mayoritas anggota majelis hakim yang lain dan sampai menyentuh pada amar putusan. Kata Kunci: Dissenting opinion, concurring opinion, putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.

scholarly journals Conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva: análise do conteúdo do artigo 333 do CPC/2015, das razões do veto da presidente da república e do aproveitamento do instituto no atual sistema processual/ Conversion from individual in collective action: analysis of the content from the article 333 in CPC/2015, the reasons of the veto of the President of the Republic and the use of the institute on current procedural system

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 389
Author(s):  
Eduardo Cambi ◽  
Marcos Vargas Fogaça
Keyword(s):  
Collective Action ◽  
Analytical Method ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Action Analysis ◽  
Collective Process ◽  
The Republic

O presente trabalho busca difundir o processo coletivo como instrumento para a melhoria da prestação jurisdicional. Também pretende a concretização das garantias constitucionais do direito processual brasileiro, corolários do devido processo legal coletivo, a partir de uma análise da conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva. Tal sugestão estava presente originalmente no artigo 333 do Código de Processo Civil de 2015 (NCPC), cuja inovação foi vetada pela Presidência da República. Para tanto, utiliza-se do método analítico de decomposição do instituto para analisar melhor cada especificidade. A conversão da demanda individual em demanda coletiva, prevista no texto vetado do NCPC, traria grandes conquistas a efetivação da justiça qualitativa, prestada de forma célere e efetiva. Assim, verifica-se a inconsistência do veto, uma vez que o instituto não estava mal disciplinado e permitia a convivência harmônica das técnicas de tutela coletiva de direitos com repercussão individual com as técnicas individuais de repercussão coletiva na sistemática processual civil brasileira. A partir da análise do incidente de coletivização, procura-se verificar em que medida tal instituto ainda pode ser aproveitado no atual sistema processual brasileiro.Palavras chave: Processo coletivo. Conversão da ação individual em ação coletiva. Veto ao Código de Processo Civil de 2015.AbstractThis study aims to spread the collective process as an instrument to the improvement of jurisdictional assistance and implementation of the constitutional principles of the Brazilian procedural law, corollaries of collective due process, on the basis of the analysis of conversion from individual in collective action, presents originally on article 333 of Civil Procedure Code of 2015, which was vetoed by the Presidency of the republic. Therefore, the analytical method of decomposition institute is used to better analyze each specificity. As the institute was regulated, the conversion from individual in collective action would bring great achievements to qualitative justice enforcement. Accordingly, there is inconsistency in Presidency’s veto, considering the institute wasn’t weak disciplined and there was the need for harmonious coexistence of rights collective protection techniques with individual techniques of collective repercussion on Brazilian civil procedure system.KeywordsCollective process. Conversion from individual in collective action. Veto on the Civil Procedure Code of 2015.

scholarly journals Unconstitutional legislative solutions enshrined by Civil Procedure Code

2017 ◽  
pp. 99-139
Author(s):  
TUDOREL TOADER ◽  
MARIETA SAFTA
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Legal Norm ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code

The study continues the presentation of the constitutional contentious court jurisprudence evolution, from determining the unconstitutionality of the legal norm to determining the unconstitutionality of the legal solution promoted by that norm, with punctual reference to the civil procedural law domain.

scholarly journals Os morfemas finais Ne e Yo da língua japonesa, à luz das funções do Kyüjôhô (informações dadas) e Shinjôhô (informações novas) - um estudo da subjetividade e emoção

1969 ◽  
pp. 125-145
Author(s):  
Yüki Mukai
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Human Relationship ◽  
Final Particle ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
New Information ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Final Particles

Japanese final particles (shüjoshi) are situated at a modus (modality) layer, which expresses the speaker’s subjective attitude regarding the dictum (proposition) such as his judgement, supposition, volition, emotion and order. The speaker uses the final particle yo to express an assertive attitude generally when he introduces new information to which he wants the addressee to pay attention. On the other hand, the speaker uses a final particle ne, expecting the addressee to agree with him or in order to make his utterance roundabout, introducing given/old information. However, the speaker’s choice of yo or ne depends not only on the informational structure of discourse, but also on the human relationship or on the strategy used by that speaker in the moment of his utterance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document