Suchergebnisse

The public interest litigant is no longer a nascent phenomenon in American jurisprudence. Born of the need of large numbers of people who individually lack the economic wherewithal or the logistical capacity to vindicate important social values or their own specific interests through the courts, these litigants now participate actively in much federal civil litigation: public law litigation. Despite the pervasive presence of public interest litigants, the federal judiciary has accorded them a mixed reception, particularly when applying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Many federal courts have applied numerous Rules in ways that disadvantage public interest litigants, especially in contrast to traditional litigants, such as private individuals, corporations, and the government. These developments were not inevitable. Most of the Rules, as adopted originally in 1938 and as amended subsequently, did not anticipate, but were compatible with, public law litigation and public interest litigants' involvement in federal civil litigation. Indeed, certain ideas underlying the Rules as a set of litigating principles may have facilitated public law litigation and public interest litigants' expanding participation in civil suits. Nonetheless, a number of judges has enforced numerous Rules in ways that adversely affect these litigants and which now constitute a discernible pattern. The fiftieth anniversary of the Federal Rules affords an auspicious occasion to explore the federal courts' application of the Rules to public law litigation and the consequences of that judicial treatment. The first section of this Article surveys the history of the Rules and chronicles the rise of public interest litigants and their growing involvement in federal civil litigation. The review shows that nearly all of the Rules, as promulgated in 1938 and as revised thereafter, were consistent with, and even may have promoted, public law litigation and public interest litigants' increasing activity. When the coalescence of numerous developments significantly transformed the character of considerable federal civil litigation, federal courts confronted many unforeseeable issues for whose resolution the Rules afforded little guidance. The second part of the Article, therefore, analyzes how the federal judiciary has addressed a number of these issues. The evaluation reveals that many courts have enforced numerous Rules in ways that have adversely affected public interest litigants. Indeed, application of all these Rules may have had cumulative impacts and even chilling effects on the litigants. Because the assessment also indicates that courts can and should enforce the Rules with greater solicitude for public interest litigants, the final section offers suggestions for so applying them and for future work on the Federal Rules and public law litigation during the next half-century of the Rules' application.

The subject of the research in this article is the influence of Roman law on Russian civil procedure. Roman law has undoubtedly had a huge impact on the development of civil legislation in many countries of the continental legal system, in particular on Russian law. But the importance of the institutes developed by Roman lawyers of different eras, has not received a decent assessment of experts. In this article, the authors propose to the reader the concept that Roman civil procedure, finally formed during the reign of Emperor Justinian, is the foundation for the development of civil proceedings in Russia at different during key stages of its development. It is also suggested that Roman law was indirectly received with the help of nineteenth-century German scholars. Full use of the potential of Roman civil procedure in Russian civil procedure is difficult, because in the Russian legal science researchers have paid little insufficient attention to the correlation of such an important stage in the development of Roman, Russian and the continental law. And yet the theoretical legal basis laid by Roman law, well-developed by Roman lawyers, with procedural institutions that have had a significant impact on Russian law. The degree of such influence on Russian law in different periods of history varied. The institutions of the claim, representation in civil procedure, as well as evidence and proof, were most affected by Roman law, although the importance of other institutions of Roman civil procedure should not be underestimated. This article is intended to initiate more fundamental analysis of the impact of Roman law on Russian civil procedure.

Almost at the same time, two significant projects related to civil procedure have been launched. The first one is the ELI/UNIDROIT project 'From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure', while the other is the codification of the New Hungarian Civil Procedure Act. This article briefly summarizes the lectures delivered at the Conference on the 'New Hungarian Civil Procedure Act and the Development of European Rules of Civil Procedure' held in Budapest at the Hungarian Academy of Justice on 30 and 31 May 2016. The goal of the conference was the introduction of the ELI/UNIDROIT project to Hungarian lawyers as well as giving an insight into the Hungarian codification process for the international audience. At the conference, internationally renowned academicians who are participating at the elaboration of European Rules of Civil Procedure discussed the major topics of the draft European model rules, whereas Hungarian scholars presented the parallel issues of codification concerning the New Hungarian Civil Procedure Act.