Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  procedural formalism
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
On 1-st of January 2015 we celebrate 50-th anniversary of the entry into force of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Act adopted on 17-th of November 1964. This anniversary is an excellent opportunity to analyze changes to the nature of the civil proceedings in terms of its inherent characteristics, which is a procedural formalism and, more precisely - changes in the degree of formalization of civil procedure. The examination leads to the conclusion that during last 50 years we can distinguish three stages in the evolution of formalism of Polish civil procedure. The first stage falls for the years 1965-1996. This stage is characterized by a reduced degree of formalization of the procedure (moderate procedural formalism), which was connected with then existed the social model of civil procedure. The second stage (1996-2009) was a period of significant increase of degree of procedural formalism, which was related to the reconstruction of the model of civil procedure in a liberal direction. The end of this stage was mainly caused by the Constitutional Court, which in the case law of the years 2007-2009 contested the legislative solutions and the practice of the Supreme Court and common courts in the field of procedural formalism. The last stage (2009 - nowadays) is characterized by reduction of the degree of procedural formalism, both by the legislature, as well as legal practitioners.
PL
Wszelkie postępowania przed organami administracji publicznej i wymiaru sprawiedliwości charakteryzuje formalizm, który jest warunkiem koniecznym dla respektowania zasady równości obu zainteresowanych stron. Jednym z najbardziej znaczących aspektów tego formalizmu jest – zarówno w procedurze cywilnej, jak i w powszechnym postępowaniu administracyjnym – podejmowanie działań proceduralnych z zastosowaniem ograniczenia czasowego. Waga spełnienia tego warunku jest ściśle związana z problemem efektywności działań proceduralnych dokonywanych przez uczestników postępowania. Porównanie ograniczeń czasowych i ich konsekwencji w procedurze cywilnej i powszechnej procedurze administracyjnej pokazuje relatywne podobieństwo w sferze warunków wstępnych dla przywrócenia ograniczenia czasowego, przy czym główne różnice skupiają się w sposobie procedowania i decydowania o temacie wniosku. Obie te procedury przewidują raczej zawieszający charakter wniosku o przywrócenie ograniczenia czasowego i możliwość przerwania postępowania albo wykonanie decyzji czy wyroku przez władzę lub sąd. Pomimo wielu podobieństw istnieje znacząca różnica dotycząca kwestii możliwości apelacji od decyzji odnoszącej się do przywrócenia ograniczenia czasowego.
EN
All proceedings before the organs of public administration and the administration of justice are characterized by formalism, which is a necessary condition of respecting the principle of equality of both interested parties. One of the most significant aspects of this formalism is – both in civil procedure and in general administrative proceedings – undertaking procedural actions with an adherence to a time limit. The importance of fulfilling this condition is strictly connected with the problem of effectiveness of procedural actions performed by the participants of litigation. The comparison of time limitations and its consequences in civil procedure and general administrative procedure reveals a relative similarity in the sphere of prerequisites to reinstate the time limit, with the major differences focusing on the manner of proceeding and deciding upon the subject matter of the motion. Both procedures provide a relatively suspensory character of the motion for reinstatement of the time limit and the possibility of discontinuing the proceedings or execution of the decision or judgment by the authority or the court. Despite many similarities, there is a significant difference concerning the issue of appealability of the decision referring to the reinstatement of the time limit.
EN
All proceedings before the organs of public administration and the administration of justice are characterized by formalism, which is a necessary condition of respecting the principle of equality of both interested parties. One of the most significant aspects of this formalism is – both in civil procedure and in general administrative proceedings – undertaking procedural actions with an adherence to a time limit. The importance of fulfilling this condition is strictly connected with the problem of effectiveness of procedural actions performed by the participants of litigation. The comparison of time limitations and its consequences in civil procedure and general administrative procedure reveals a relative similarity in the sphere of prerequisites to reinstate the time limit, with the major differences focusing on the manner of proceeding and deciding upon the subject matter of the motion. Both procedures provide a relatively suspensory character of the motion for reinstatement of the time limit and the possibility of discontinuing the proceedings or execution of the decision or judgment by the authority or the court. Despite many similarities, there is a significant difference concerning the issue of appealability of the decision referring to the reinstatement of the time limit.
PL
Wszelkie postępowania przed organami administracji publicznej i wymiaru sprawiedliwości charakteryzuje formalizm, który jest warunkiem koniecznym dla respektowania zasady równości obu zainteresowanych stron. Jednym z najbardziej znaczących aspektów tego formalizmu jest – zarówno w procedurze cywilnej, jak i w powszechnym postępowaniu administracyjnym – podejmowanie działań proceduralnych z zastosowaniem ograniczenia czasowego. Waga spełnienia tego warunku jest ściśle związana z problemem efektywności działań proceduralnych dokonywanych przez uczestników postępowania. Porównanie ograniczeń czasowych i ich konsekwencji w procedurze cywilnej i powszechnej procedurze administracyjnej pokazuje relatywne podobieństwo w sferze warunków wstępnych dla przywrócenia ograniczenia czasowego, przy czym główne różnice skupiają się w sposobie procedowania i decydowania o temacie wniosku. Obie te procedury przewidują raczej zawieszający charakter wniosku o przywrócenie ograniczenia czasowego i możliwość przerwania postępowania albo wykonanie decyzji czy wyroku przez władzę lub sąd. Pomimo wielu podobieństw istnieje znacząca różnica dotycząca kwestii możliwości apelacji od decyzji odnoszącej się do przywrócenia ograniczenia czasowego.
PL
Procedural formalism requires conformity to requirements concerning the approach to procedural measures as to the form, location, and time of their commencement. The timely completion of each procedural measure, including applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification thereof, remains a condition for its effectiveness. It goes without saying that the court will reject any delayed application for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification in closed session – whereas discrepancies in adjudicature as well as doctrine doubts have arisen with regard to effects of filing “premature” applications. It has been ultimately ruled that any applications for the drafting and submitting of a judgment and justification filed on the day of yet prior to judgment delivery shall be considered ineffective. The judgment only exists once it has been delivered or once its operative part has been signed, i.a. it can only become the object of other procedural measures as of that moment rather than as of that day. Every period defined as a specific time span has to be framed with occurrences outlining its beginning and end, respectively. It is impossible to calculate a period as of a procedural measure which has not been completed yet. Since the securing of a justification of a judgment delivered in one’s own case is an expression of exercising the right to fair trial, and aspects of the right to trial include the right to a defect-free judgment, such right ought to be exercised only provided that the relevant application moved for is defect-free as well. Making the effectiveness of an application for the drafting and submitting of judgment justification dependent on the delivery of the operative part of a judgment concerns both the act of filing a letter with the court and submitting the same at an operator’s postal premises.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.