Prevention of Abuse of Procedural Rights and Stimulation of Parties Good Faith of Conduct
Abstract
In this article, a comparative legal and empirical study of the principle of good faith in law and the prevention of abuse of procedural rights as one of its element are conducted. These phenomena should be recognized as relevant objects for research, given that in civil procedural Ukraine specific measures were taken to prevent abuse of procedural rights for the first time, during the reform of the legislation in 2017, and unfortunately such actions occur as a habits of legal reality of Ukraine. in court practice quite often. Given the need to ensure effective protection of rights through timely and proportionate consideration of the case by the courts, their proper application is essential for science and practice. The article analyzes the provisions of the civil procedural law of Ukraine, where for the first time this institute was reflected in the legislation in the wording of 2017, as well as other states (Italy, England and Wales, France, Australia). It also analyzed the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which reveals the concept of bona fide as a principle of law, as well as examines the institute of abuse of procedural rights as one of the manifestations of implementation of this principle, specific manifestations of unfair behavior of participants of the process, taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
The analyzed provisions of the civil procedural legislation, which stipulates the ways of overcoming the abuse of procedural rights, as well as the doctrines, allowed the conclusions to substantiate more rational approaches to the prevention of abuse of procedural rights in civil proceedings. In particular, ensuring the cooperation of judges and parties and defining their roles not from the standpoint of antagonistic approaches, but based on the ideas of sustainable development, will overcome the major pressing problems of modern civil justice. The introduction of rational measures to prevent abuse of procedural rights and to encourage parties to act in good faith will ensure the efficiency and accessibility of justice.
References
Advisors, I. V. (2010) Abuse of law in the electoral process. M., Chero, 124 p.
Herlitz, G. N. (1994) The Meaning of the Term «Prima Facie». Louisiana Law Review, 55 (2), 391–408.
Tabak, I. A., Sedyh I. V. (2016) «Situacija jestoppel'» pri nenadlezhashhej realizacii processual'nyh prav subjektami civilisticheskogo processa. Jekonomicheskaja bezopasnost' Rossii: vyzovy XXI veka. Saratov, Saratovskij social'no-jekonomicheskij institut (filial) RJeU im. G. V. Plehanova, 231–237.
Tkachuk, A. O. (2018) Pryntsyp dobrosovisnosti uchasnykiv tsyvilnoho sudochynstva ta zaborona zlovzhyvannia tsyvilnymy protsesualnymy pravamy. Problemy zakonnosti, 141, 94–103.
Pohrebniak, S. P. (2007) Vtilennia pryntsypu dobrosovisnosti v pravi. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy, 2 (49), 13–24.
Taniguchi, Y. (2000) Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights in Japanese Civil Procedure. Tulsa Journal of Comparative & International Law, 8, 164–182.
Cheremnov, D. V. (2015) Katehoriia dobrosovisnosti u konteksti zlovzhyvannia tsyvilnym protsesualnym pravom. In Andronov, I. V., Volkova, N. V., Honhalo, R. F. (ed.) Zlovzhyvannia tsyvilnymy protsesualnymy pravamy: shliakhy protydii (pp. 60–62). Odesa, Feniks.
Postanovy Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 11.09.2019 r. u spravi № 644/7232/17 za pozovom OSOBA_1 do TOV «Ukrainska tekhnolohichna kompaniia», TOV «DILA LTD» pro vyznannia dohovoru kupivli-prodazhu nezhytlovoi budivli nediisnym. (n.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : https://bit.ly/3kdK3nr.
Case of Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain (Application no. 11681/85). Judgment, 07 July 1989. (n.d.) Retrieved from The European Court of Human Rights : https://bit.ly/3bW4ceA.
Judin, A. V. (2016) Zloupotreblenie processual'nymi pravami v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava, 8, 208–211.
Postanova Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 29.01.2020 r. u spravi № 686/20825/15-ts za pozovom OSOBA_1 do OSOBA_2 pro rozirvannia dohovoru. (n.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : https://bit.ly/35wcqJn.
Postanova Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 22.01.2020 r. u spravi № 640/19249/17-ts za pozovom OSOBA_1 do OSOBA_2 pro rozirvannia shliubu. (n.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : https://bit.ly/3mgJBGP.
Postanova Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 13.01.2020 r. u spravi № 461/12958/14-ts. (n.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : https://bit.ly/2RlDHpx.
Postanova Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 30.01.2020 r. u spravi № 744/880/19 za pozovom OSOBA_1 do PP «Spetsializovane pidpryiemstvo «Iustytsiia», Holovnoho upravlinnia derzhavnoi kaznacheiskoi sluzhby u Lvivskii oblasti, Halytskoho viddilu derzhavnoi vykonavchoi sluzhby Lvivskoho miskoho upravlinnia yustytsii pro povernennia storin u stan, yakyi isnuvav do provedennia torhiv. (n.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen : https://bit.ly/33hWl7e.
Gautrais, V. (2004) Fictions et présomptions: outils juridiques dintégration des technologies, Sécurité juridique et sécurité technique: indépendance ou métissage, Conférence organisée par le programme international de coopération scientifique (CRDP.CECOJI) Montréal, 30 septembre 2003. Vol 9, n°2. Numéro Spécial (Été/Summer), 1–11.
Judin, A. V. (2009) Grazhdanskoe processual'noe pravonarushenie i otvetstvennost'. S.-Pb., Juridicheskaja kniga.
Lowe Jr., E. N. (1965) The California Evidence Code: Presumptions. California Law Review, 53 (5), 1439–1493. https://doi.org/10.2307/3478957.
Soares, K. E. (2015) Abuse of procedural law in the new Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Herald of the civil process, 4, 185–196.
