Search
Search Results
-
Rethinking principles of civil procedure - expectations and experiences:
118-127.Views:192The central topic of the present study is certain features of the principles re-regulated during the codification of the Hungarian Code of Civil Procedure. It can be said that the number and content of the principles have also become more concentrated as a result of codification.
The Act CXXX of 2016 on the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “CPC”) brought a number of conceptual changes, which can also be observed in terms of principles. The principles chapter of the CPC has been renewed, some principles that are not yet known in Hungarian civil procedure law have been laid down. The present study reviews these changes and also seeks to take a position on the content of the principles, with a separate examination of the Principle of Concentration of Proceedings, which has also been identified as a priority objective by the legislator.
The paper analyzes the academic debates on the principles and attempts to answer whether the experience of the period since its entry into force has met some of the expectations for the reform of the principles. The study examines the changed regulations that have led to opposing views in the literature.
An important topic of the study is that, in line with the divided structure of the proceeding, the court's intervention activities have also changed. This change can also be observed in the principles, as the Principle of Court's Obligation to Intervene has emerged as a new principle. Some features of the Principle of Truth-telling and Principle of Good Faith are also analyzed.
The study seeks to shed light on the fundamental issues of civil procedure through foreign examples, in which certain elements of German legislation are mainly mentioned.
-
The role of interest in civil processes
42-46Views:256The study reviews the enforcement of various interest-related claims in civil litigation and their special litigation rules, emphasizing that there are few specific norms in the Code of Civil Procedure from a procedural point of view compared to the enforcement of pecuniary claims. The study compares the interest provisions of the Act III. of 1952 and the Act CXXX of 2016, and seeks to provide adequate answers to enforcement issues arising from regulatory gaps. The article states that the law generally sets out some specific procedural provisions for contributions to be enforced together with the principal claim, which are also subject to interest as a contribution to the principal claim. The number of purely interest-specific provisions in our current law is negligible. The analysis covers the following specific legal provisions concerning interest: the amount in dispute, appeal against the interest provisions of the judgment at first instance, the admissibility at second instance of an increase of the claim for payment of interest, the admissibility of an application for review only of the provisions of a final judgment concerning interest. The study evaluates trends in court practice through analysis of ad hoc court decisions. The author states that uniform and coherent case law is in the best interests of the claimants based on clear legal provisions.
-
The divided trial system of the New Code of Civil Procedure in the light of the Act I of 1911
88-96Views:82n my paper, I dealt with the divided trial system, because in the Conception of the New Code of Civil Procedure arised the idea, that the first-instance procedure will be regulated by the divided trial system. During my studies, I researched the trial system of the Act I of 1911, and I analyzed the sentencing practice in this era.
First, I presented the matter of the trial system, as well as the two dominant trends in Hungary relating to the creation of civil action. The difference between the two trends, that distinct mesne process creates the civil action. According to one of them, the civil action is created when the defendant gets the statement of claim, or, on the other hand, when the defendant submits countermotion.
In the next chapter, I intended to present the point of intersection of action, which legal institution separates the first-instance procedure to pre-trial hearing and the trial on the merits.
After this chapter, I reportedtheresults of sentencing practice and cametotwoconclusions. Ontheonehand, thepre-trialhearinghangedfirefor a longtimebecause of theappealproceedings. Ontheotherhand, thesentencing practice wasnotconsistent, becausethecourtsused an incorrectterminology. Thecourtsdismissedtheproceedingsbeforethesubmission ofcountermotion, butaccordingtotheAct of 1911 themesneprocess of creating a civil actionwastosubmit a countermotion.
Inconclusion, I thinkthe divided trial system of the New Code of Civil Procedure will be totally different than the divided trial system of the Act of 1911.