Suchergebnisse

Since Estonia regained its independence on 20 August 1991 Estonian civil procedure has been gradually developed from the civil procedure of Estonian SSR to the modern civil procedure rules in force today. The current code of civil procedure was adopted on 20 April 2005 and came into force in 1 January 2006. Since coming into force several changes have been made to the current code with significant changes coming into force on 1 January 2009. Estonian civil procedure is mainly based on the adversarial principle, except for some specific cases and proceedings on petition where the inquisitorial principle is used. Deriving from this the parties are in most cases free to decide on what evidence to submit and whether to submit evidence at all. While the court may ask the parties to submit evidence, they are not required to do so. The situation is different in cases based on the inquisitorial principle. Estonian civil procedure does not impose many restrictions as to the kind of evidence that can be submitted. Virtually anything that can be reproduced in some way may be submitted as documentary evidence and any person who has knowledge about the facts of the case may be heard as a witness. Even the parties may be heard under oath. The Estonian Code of Civil Procedure does not set out many rules on how to evaluate the evidence submitted. The basic rule is that the court has to assess the evidence impartially and as a whole and not give any preference to any particular piece of evidence.

The following text deals with the general principles and legal rules regarding evidence and evidence taking in the Portuguese legal system. Based on the rules foreseen in legal texts, as well as court decisions and national literature, the authors approach the general theory behind the current rules and notions in force while also referencing the specifications of the means of proof in use in legal practice.

After a brief historical introduction, the short monograph reviews the system of evidence in Hungarian civil proceedings, approaching the topic from the aspect of the basic principles. Following changes in the role of material truth, it presents alterations in the interpretation of and re-interpretation of the notion of the principle of free disposition of the parties. Then it deals with the following basic principles and their relation to evidence: principle of orality, principle of directness, principle of public hearing, principle of equality of arms, right to be heard, ensuring the use of one's mother tongue, principle of procedural economy, the proper (bona fide) conduct of the lawsuit, principle of adversarial hearing, principle of the freedom of proof. After examining the questions of admissibility of evidence and burden of proof, it discusses particular means of evidence, the taking of evidence, the preliminary taking of evidence, costs of evidence, the question of unlawful evidence, and finally, the cross-border taking of evidence.

This report outlines the rules on the taking and using of evidence in Austrian civil procedure law. On the basis of principles such as the free disposition of parties, the attenuated inquisitorial principle or the principles of orality and directness, the judge and the parties form a "working group" when investigating the matter in dispute. The Austrian concept of an active judge, however, goes along with the judge's duty to do case-management and especially to induce a truthful fact-finding using judicial discretion. While only five means of proof (documents, witnesses, expert opinions, evidence by inspection and the examination of parties) are explicitly listed the Austrian civil procedure code, there is no numerus clausus regarding the means of evidence. Evidence may be freely assessed by the judge.

This work presumes to be an introduction for the foreign reader to Spanish regulations in regard to evidence. It has been structured following a classic design in the Spanish academic literature with the aim to approach the reader to the Spanish legal way of thinking. With the same goal it a starting Chapter that analyzes the different principles that lead Spanish Civil Procedure has been included.

The text presents legal issues concerning evidence and evidence taking in Polish civil proceedings. General principles of Polish civil proceedings are discussed, as well as the principles concerning evidence. The evolution of Polish proceedings is obvious: it is getting more and more formal. The provisions about preclusion are presented in this context and the contradictory model of the proceedings is expressed strongly. There are some doubts if the evolution of Polish Code of Civil Proceedings goes in right direction. The problem of possible adoption of pre-trial regulations is also mentioned.

The aim of the book is to highlight the law and economics issues confronting civil law countries. The following questions are addressed in this volume: to what extent have the existing codes in civil law countries been designed to incorporate economic considerations? Can the modifications made to codified rules over time be explained by a will to react to new economic constraints? Which economic problems are at the root of the revision of codes? And, given that the code is not the only source of law in civil law countries, the volume also explores the relationship between law and economics

The following text deals with the general principles and legal rules regarding evidence and evidence taking in the Portuguese legal system. Based on the rules foreseen in legal texts, as well as court decisions and national literature, the authors approach the general theory behind the current rules and notions in force while also referencing the specifications of the means of proof in use in legal practice.

The term "secularization" is used to qualify that manner of change which occurred in the Islamic system of civil law from 1451 to 1926. It refers to the processes that caused gradual revision and/or change in Islamic Ottoman and Turkish civil law and connotes a departure from the orthodox tenets prescribed by Islamic law. This departure is a process that may create gradual or abrupt change. Also that which in retrospect is classified as a change may not at the outset be classified as such. Specifically, this change may begin in the form of supplementation and continue in this manner without the process taking the form of major change. On the other hand there may be total change within the structure undergoing these experiences. This structure, which is the subject of discussion, is the Islamic Ottoman and Turkish civil law. The secularization process in this case represents: (1) supplementation, (2) reform (Tanzimat and the Mecelle), (3) change (abrogation of the capitulatory system), (4) complete secular change in civil law (adoption of the Swiss Civil Code).