Considerații cu privire la interpretarea art. 713 alin. (3) din Codul de procedură civilă

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2020) ◽  
pp. 25-37
Author(s):  
Horia-Nicolae Țiț ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Common ◽  
New Interpretation

Art. 713 parag. (3) of the Civil Procedure Code establishes the prohibition to invoke, by way of a subsequent enforcement appeal, certain motives that existed at the date when a previous enforcement appeal was filed, at the same time allowing the appellant to complete his request with new motives, provided the deadline for submitting the appeal is met in respect thereof. This article analyses the two theses of the enunciated legal provisions, determining the correlation with the common law provisions and trying to clarify their applicability in concrete cases. The key interpretations stated in the doctrine are highlighted and a new interpretation is hereby proposed, while the conclusions comprise a lege ferenda proposal.

Opting out of the common law: recent developments in the legal system of the Sudan

1973 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-148
Author(s):  
Zaki Mustafa
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Evidence Code ◽  
Opting Out ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Common ◽  
To Receive

On October 1st, 1972, the Minister of Justice of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan constituted a committee consisting of 25 leading members of the Sudanese Legal Profession for the purpose of “re-examining fully the Sudan Civil Code, 1971, the Civil Procedure Code, 1972, the Civil Evidence Code, 1972, and the draft Penal and Commercial Codes”. The Committee was requested to recommend to the Minister whether all or any of the aforementioned codes should be abrogated, temporarily suspended (if already in force), kept as it is, or amended. The Committee was asked to submit its findings and recommendations as soon as possible and was authorised “to receive evidence from experts as well as from those directly connected with the application of the law”.

scholarly journals O INCIDENTE DE RESOLUÇÃO DE DEMANDAS REPETITIVAS NO CONTEXTO DO SISTEMA DE PRECEDENTES: ANÁLISE CRÍTICA DO FENÔMENO DA "COMMONLAWLIZAÇÃO" DO DIREITO BRASILEIRO

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Gabriel Joner ◽  
Jesser Rodrigues Borges
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

RESUMOO presente estudo tem por objetivo, sem a pretensão de esgotar o tema, analisar o Incidente de Resolução de Demandas Repetitivas, incluído pelo Novo Código de Processo Civil de 2015, sob a ótica do denominado sistema de precedentes e, ao final, propor uma análise crítica acerca da possível “commonlawlização” do direito brasileiro. Para tanto, buscou-se breves considerações históricas acerca dos institutos da common law e da civil law, na sequência, analisou-se tais institutos sob a ótica do Código de Processo Civil de 1973 e, ao final, a sua sistematização a partir do Novo Código de Processo Civil. Os mecanismos incorporados pelo Novo Código visam a amenizar a problemática atualmente enfrentada pelo Poder Judiciário, com o objetivo de proporcionar celeridade processual e segurança jurídica. Por fim, analisa-se o Incidente de Resolução de Demandas Repetitivas, propondo uma leitura crítica do fenômeno da “commonlawlização” do direito brasileiro, apontando a necessidade de cautela em relação aos mecanismos importados do direito estrangeiro, em especial, ao Incidente de Resolução de Demandas Repetitivas, a fim de dar-lhes uma leitura conforme a Constituição Federal.Palavras-chave: Novo Código de Processo Civil. Sistema de Precedentes. Common law. Civil law. Incidente de Resolução de Demandas Repetitivas. ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study, without the pretension of exhausting the subject, is to analyze the Incident for Resolution of Repetitive Claims, included in the New Civil Procedure Code of 2015, under the perspective of the denominated precedents system and, at the end, to propose a critical analysis about the possible “communalization” of Brazilian law. ¬¬¬¬Therefore, short historical considerations were sought on the common law and civil law institutes, followed by an analysis of these institutes from the point of view of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1973 and, finally, their systematization based on the New Code of Civil Procedure. The mechanisms incorporated by the New Code aim to alleviate the problems currently faced by the Judiciary, with the objective of providing procedural expediency and legal certainty. At the end, the Repetitive Demand Incident Incident is analyzed, proposing a critical reading of the phenomenon of “commonlization” of Brazilian law, pointing out the need for caution in relation to the mechanisms imported from foreign law, especially to the Incident of Resolution of Demands Repetitive, in order to give them a reading according to the Federal Constitution.Keywords: New Civil Procedure Code. Precedents System. Common law. Civil law. Incident for Resolution of Repetitive Claims.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of Civil Procedure in Common Law and Civil Law Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Nader Ghanbari ◽  
Hassan Mohseni ◽  
Dawood Nassiran
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Specific Method ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Separate Branch ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Comparative Study

Comparing the legal systems is a specific method in which due to its important function is considered as a separate branch in law. None of the branches in law can place its knowledge merely on ideas and findings within the national borders. Several basic objections have been given regarding the definition and purpose of comparative study in civil procedure. In addition there are specific problems regarding studying practically the similar systems in a legal system like differences in purpose, definition and concept. In different legal systems like civil law and common law systems in which there is a divergence, even the judicial system`s organs and judges` appointment and judicial formalism are different, which add to the problems of the comparative study. Reviewing these differences could lead to a better understanding of these legal systems and recognizing the common principles in making use of each other`s findings considering these differences and indicate the obstacles of comparative study in this regard.

Priests of the Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. McSweeney
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
The Status ◽  
Royal Courts ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
New Interpretation

Priests of the Law tells the story of the first people in the history of the common law to think of themselves as legal professionals: the group of justices who wrote the celebrated treatise known as Bracton. It offers a new interpretation of Bracton and its authors. Bracton was not so much an attempt to explain or reform the early common law as it was an attempt to establish the status and authority of the king’s justices. The justices who wrote it were some of the first people to work full-time in England’s royal courts, at a time when they had no obvious model for the legal professional. They found one in an unexpected place: the Roman-law tradition that was sweeping across Europe in the thirteenth century. They modeled themselves on the jurists of Roman law who were teaching in Italy and France. In Bracton and other texts they produced, the justices of the royal courts worked hard to establish that the nascent common-law tradition was just one constituent part of the Roman-law tradition. Through their writing, this small group of people, working in the courts of an island realm, imagined themselves to be part of a broader European legal culture. They made the case that they were not merely servants of the king. They were priests of the law.

Coherence and Continuity: A Study in Comparative Codification

1987 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia Wasserstein Fassberg
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Characteristic Mode ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Conceptual Coherence ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Common ◽  
Internal Coherence ◽  
The One ◽  
Linguistic Fact

The English common law is frequently referred to as a seamless web; continental lawyers tend rather to think of law in terms of internal coherence and consistency. This is not merely a linguistic fact, and the terms are not simply interchangeable. Each reflects the characteristic mode of thought and of development in its respective system: the common law constantly and gradually emerging as a cumulative historical process; continental law stemming from, and in every case ultimately resting on interpretation of, codes, the product of a moment in history. Thus, although they are both capable of denoting the same idea of wholeness, each term has a slightly different connotative emphasis, the one stressing historical coherence and the other emphasising conceptual coherence.This is but one example of the proposition that institutions can not be imported wholesale, that foreign legal provisions, and terms of thought and reference, have to be evaluated beyond their immediate superficial appearance before they may be adopted or used as measures for local purposes. All such institutions have both a historical and a contextual significance which makes comparison on the level of one-dimensional questions such as, “Which is the better rule or the more attractive term?” meaningless.

Access to Information and Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-173
Author(s):  
European Law
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Of Evidence

This chapter explores the provision and testing of evidence, which is central to civil procedure. Effective access to information and evidence are basic tools that ensure access to justice is a real rather than a merely theoretical right. There is a great deal of variety across European jurisdictions in respect of the approach taken to evidence-taking, and particularly to access to relevant information. This is a consequence of a variety of factors: the distinction between the civil law/common law; legal history; and procedural culture, and particularly the distribution of roles between the court, judiciary, and parties. This divergence in approaches to evidence may be the source of difficulties in cross-border litigation. The chapter identifies the common core of the law of evidence and the best, or more convenient, rules, including those related to the management of evidence, in use in European jurisdictions. To do so, it looks at the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles, the IBA Rules of Evidence and of legal instruments addressing the issue of evidence and access to information within the European Union.

scholarly journals Toward an Epistemology of ISP Secondary Liability

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Contributory Infringement ◽  
Corporate Entity ◽  
Sociotechnical Networks ◽  
The Common ◽  
Secondary Liability

At common law, contributory infringement for copyright infringement requires 'knowledge' of the infringing activity by a direct infringer before secondary liability can attach. In the United States, the 'safe harbor' provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that shield Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from secondary copyright liability, are concomitantly available only to ISPs that lack the common law knowledge prerequisites for such liability. But this leads to the question of when a juridical corporate entity can be said to have 'knowledge' under the statute. Legal institutions have well-established processes for inferring the knowledge state of natural persons, but corporations are complex sociotechnical networks of human and non-human elements whose information state does not map well onto such inferential methods. This question is of course not unique to copyright liability; corporate entities may be responsible for 'knowing' actions under a variety of applicable legal provisions, and the question of corporate knowledge is generally under theorized. But consideration of ISP 'knowledge' in this context points the way to consideration of corporate epistemology that must be foundational to determining corporate responsibility in copyright protection.

scholarly journals SOME CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE QUALITY OF PARTY IN INDIVIDUAL LABOUR DISPUTES

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lavinia Onica Chipea
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Social Dialogue ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Labour Disputes

AbstractThe paper proposes, based on the analysis of the Code of Civil Procedure and of laborlegislation, particularly those of the Labor Code and the Law on social dialogue, to nominate,to develop analytically and synthetically the institution of the quality of party in a individuallabour conflict.Along with the cited legal provisions, the examples of judicial practice in BihorCounty point out the specific of labor jurisdiction in the Romanian legal system, jurisdictiongoverned by the Code of Civil Procedure, as common law, which is adapted to the speciallegislation of the spirit of this institution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document