Suchergebnisse

The article addresses the representation in the court, which is one of the main institutions of the Civil Procedural Law. The article analyzes the norms of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine in the wording of 2017 of procedural representation. The genesis of this institute in the Civil Process of Ukraine, starting with the Civil Code of the USSR of 1963, is briefly reviewed. The provisions of procedural representation in different types of proceedings are compared, in particular with economic and administrative ones. On the basis of this it is noted that there was a unification of the rules of representation, which is positive in terms of the practice of applying these provisions of the law. Also the author indicates the terminology and definitions used in this institute as applied in literature and legislation; analyzes the provisions of the Code regarding the types of procedural representation and accordingly indicates that the legislation introduced, along the traditional types of representation (legal and voluntary), another type of representation – self-representation. The article focuses on the possibility of applying procedural representation in different types of proceedings – the ordering proceedings, litigation (claim) and separate proceedings, and certain categories of cases. It is noted that at present, the legislator does not foresee any restrictions of the application of the institution of representation in any categories of cases, as it was in the CPC of Ukraine of 2004. Concerning the same types of proceedings, it is concluded that the institution of representation is applicable to cases of ordered and claim (general and simplified) proceedings. But in the cases of separate proceedings, this institution cannot be applied at this time.Article received 10.04.2018 ; У статті здійснено аналіз норми нової редакції Цивільного процесуального кодексу України щодо процесуального представництва, порівняння положень щодо процесуального представництва в різних видах судочинства, зокрема з господарським та адміністративним. Розглянуто генезис цього інституту в цивільному процесі. Стисло проаналізовано види представництва. Основну увагу приділено можливості застосування процесуального представництва в різних видах провадження (наказному, позовному і окремому) та в різних категоріях справ.Матеріал надійшов 10.04.2018

The article addresses the representation in the court, which is one of the main institutions of the Civil Procedural Law. The article analyzes the norms of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine in the wording of 2017 of procedural representation. The genesis of this institute in the Civil Process of Ukraine, starting with the Civil Code of the USSR of 1963, is briefly reviewed. The provisions of procedural representation in different types of proceedings are compared, in particular with economic and administrative ones. On the basis of this it is noted that there was a unification of the rules of representation, which is positive in terms of the practice of applying these provisions of the law. Also the author indicates the terminology and definitions used in this institute as applied in literature and legislation; analyzes the provisions of the Code regarding the types of procedural representation and accordingly indicates that the legislation introduced, along the traditional types of representation (legal and voluntary), another type of representation – self-representation. The article focuses on the possibility of applying procedural representation in different types of proceedings – the ordering proceedings, litigation (claim) and separate proceedings, and certain categories of cases. It is noted that at present, the legislator does not foresee any restrictions of the application of the institution of representation in any categories of cases, as it was in the CPC of Ukraine of 2004. Concerning the same types of proceedings, it is concluded that the institution of representation is applicable to cases of ordered and claim (general and simplified) proceedings. But in the cases of separate proceedings, this institution cannot be applied at this time.Article received 10.04.2018 ; У статті здійснено аналіз норми нової редакції Цивільного процесуального кодексу України щодо процесуального представництва, порівняння положень щодо процесуального представництва в різних видах судочинства, зокрема з господарським та адміністративним. Розглянуто генезис цього інституту в цивільному процесі. Стисло проаналізовано види представництва. Основну увагу приділено можливості застосування процесуального представництва в різних видах провадження (наказному, позовному і окремому) та в різних категоріях справ.Матеріал надійшов 10.04.2018

The article addresses the representation in the court, which is one of the main institutions of the Civil Procedural Law. The article analyzes the norms of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine in the wording of 2017 of procedural representation. The genesis of this institute in the Civil Process of Ukraine, starting with the Civil Code of the USSR of 1963, is briefly reviewed. The provisions of procedural representation in different types of proceedings are compared, in particular with economic and administrative ones. On the basis of this it is noted that there was a unification of the rules of representation, which is positive in terms of the practice of applying these provisions of the law. Also the author indicates the terminology and definitions used in this institute as applied in literature and legislation; analyzes the provisions of the Code regarding the types of procedural representation and accordingly indicates that the legislation introduced, along the traditional types of representation (legal and voluntary), another type of representation – self-representation. The article focuses on the possibility of applying procedural representation in different types of proceedings – the ordering proceedings, litigation (claim) and separate proceedings, and certain categories of cases. It is noted that at present, the legislator does not foresee any restrictions of the application of the institution of representation in any categories of cases, as it was in the CPC of Ukraine of 2004. Concerning the same types of proceedings, it is concluded that the institution of representation is applicable to cases of ordered and claim (general and simplified) proceedings. But in the cases of separate proceedings, this institution cannot be applied at this time.Article received 10.04.2018 ; У статті здійснено аналіз норми нової редакції Цивільного процесуального кодексу України щодо процесуального представництва, порівняння положень щодо процесуального представництва в різних видах судочинства, зокрема з господарським та адміністративним. Розглянуто генезис цього інституту в цивільному процесі. Стисло проаналізовано види представництва. Основну увагу приділено можливості застосування процесуального представництва в різних видах провадження (наказному, позовному і окремому) та в різних категоріях справ.Матеріал надійшов 10.04.2018

The article studies the effectiveness of the institution of dispute resolution with the participation of a judge through the analysis of legislation and judicial practice in all types of proceedings in the courts of first instance, except criminal. It is noted that since 2017, a completely new procedural institute for the settlement of disputes with the participation of a judge has appeared in procedural codes of Ukraine, except criminal, and in judicial practice thereafter. Its introduction into Ukrainian procedural law was with the intention to relieve the judicial system. However, to find out whether this institute has fulfilled the assigned intention, the analysis of judicial practice is required. Accordingly, the analysis of judicial practice has been conducted, comprising all years of existence of this institution in civil, administrative, and commercial litigation in order to determine the frequency and success rates of its application in practice. This revealed that dispute settlement with the participation of a judge in administrative proceedings barely applies. In addition, based on the analysis of one hundred cases for the last period, there are certain categories of cases where dispute settlement with the participation of a judge was used more often. Eventually, it was concluded that today the institute of dispute settlement with the participation of a judge has not been widely used and its effectiveness remains insignificant. Therefore, the institution of dispute resolution with the participation of a judge requires a great reformation – consisting of enforcement of mediation execution by judges, specific ways of resolution of cases belonging to certain categories as well as insertion of corresponding provisions in procedural codes, and popularization to the masses. ; Статтю присвячено вивченню ефективності застосування інституту врегулювання спору за участю судді через аналіз судової практики в усіх видах судочинства в судах першої інстанції, окрім кримінального. Зазначено, що з 2017 р. в судовій практиці з'явився абсолютно новий процесуальний інститут врегулювання спору за участю судді. Його запровадження в українське процесуальне законодавство мало на меті розвантажити судову систему. Однак, чи виконав цей інститут основне завдання, можливо з'ясувати через аналіз судової практики. У статті здійснено аналіз судової практики за весь час існування цього інституту в цивільному, адміністративному та господарському судочинстві з метою визначення частоти його застосування на практиці. З'ясовано, що врегулювання спору за участю судді в адміністративному судочинстві фактично не застосовується. Далі на підставі аналізу 100 справ за останній період визначено категорії справ, де врегулювання спору за участю судді застосовувалося частіше. Зроблено висновок, що на сьогодні інститут врегулювання спору за участю судді не набув широкого застосування та поки що його ефективність є незначною.

The article is dedicated to investigation of counter-security as a novelty of the reform of Ukrainian civil procedure legislation. The analysis of rules of the current procedural legislation on counter-security as a novelty of the civil process in Ukraine was made in the article. The determination of features of the institute of counter-security in the mechanism of civil proceedings was given. The role of counter-security in the civil process was identified. The conclusion was drawn that through the institute of counter-security, the principle of equality of parties is ensured, which is manifested in the equal assignment of the defendant to such procedural rights which are effectively identical to the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant was granted effective protection against the claim by virtue of the new institute. It is stated that the counter-security should be seen as a way of preventing the plaintiff's abuse of procedural rights and offsetting the potential consequences. The introduction of counter-security is a clear step forward to European standards of quality and efficiency in the administration of justice, however, by examining civil procedural law and jurisprudence, the conclusion was made that the institution is not regulated at this stage of its establishment and application.