Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 1 (2008)

Articles

Role of Judges and Party-Autonomy in settlement in Litigation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tkp.6643  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2008-12-31

Abstract

Administering justice includes settling and deciding cases by authorized judicial authorities under the provision of law. One of the crucial elements of administering justice in a democratic country of law is the situation where the state takes from the directly concerned entities the responsibility of obeying in the society the behaviour norms accepted by it. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how to get an aim of civil procedure – using judge's activity or depending on party autonomy and activity in protection of its rights. That is a question about rules of civil proceedings – the models of civil proceedings, the rule of truth – the rule of flexibility – contradictory procedure; securing of private interest or public interest; separating the fact from the law; what ensures extensive settlement of a case – a court activity or the parties initiative and concern. The issue of 'active judge' or 'impartial – heartless judge' an arbitrator of 'free dispute of the parties' relates to the essence of the procedural relation whether the duty to 'examine a case' extensively results form relations between a court and parties (plaintiff and defendant) and what objectives and functions are carried out by civil proceedings – only private or also public interest. Author states by all means the transparency of legal constructions and providing the com fort work of a court may not cover the protection of “weaker” party interest – providing actual 'parties equality' in proceedings.

References

  1. M. Cappelletti, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective, Oxford 1989. [Google Scholar]
  2. T. Liszcz, Paragrafy eleganckie, lecz bezduszne, „Rzeczpospolita” 2004, No 176 of 29 July 2004. [Google Scholar]
  3. R.K.H. Steffens, Zivilprozessreform 2001/2002 in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Deutsch-Polnische Juristen – Zeitschrift 2002, No 1. [Google Scholar]
  4. P. Hartman [in:] Zivilprozessordung, ed. A. Baumbach, 62. Auflage, München 2004. [Google Scholar]
  5. L. Rosenberg, K.H. Schwab, P. Gottwald, Zivilprozessrecht, 16. Auflage, München 2004. [Google Scholar]
  6. P. Gottwald, Aktuelle Entwicklungen der Zivilprozessreform in Dutschland [in:] Procedural law on the threshold of the new millennium, ed. W.H. Rechberger, T. Klicka, Wien 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. H. Koch, Współczesne tendencje rozwojowe prawa cywilno-procesowego w Republice Federalnej Niemiec [in:] Współczesne tendencje rozwoju prawa procesowego cywilnego, ed. E. Warzocha, Warszawa 1990. [Google Scholar]
  8. K.D. Kerameus, Niektóre zagadnienia procedury cywilnej w Grecji, Nowe Prawo 1988, No 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  9. J. A. Jolowicz, The active role of the Court in civil litigation, ,,Studies in Comparative Law” t. 15, Milano 1975. [Google Scholar]
  10. Z. Ziembiński, O pojmowaniu sprawiedliwości, Lublin 1992. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.