Starting from July 1th, 2023, a new separate consumer proceeding is in effect in civil litigation. According to the legislator's declaration, it is intended to implement the principle of compensatory justice, aiming to restore a real balance in the legal relationship between consumers and entrepreneurs. The following analysis is aimed at verifying the correctness of the applied regulatory method both as to the adequacy of the use of the institution of separate proceedings, as well as the scope of procedural distinctions and their potential to distinguish a consumer case from other civil disputes. Additionally the usefulness of the new regulations as tools to ensure the elimination of contractual imbalances will be assesed. In this regard, the point of reference will be EU law and its pro-consumer interpretation, already well-established in case law. It leaves no doubt about the necessity for Member States to make efforts both at the normative and judicial levels to ensure an effective and proportionate remedy to restore contractual balance and discourage unfair market practices by entrepreneurs. The analysis presented, after juxtaposing the content of Articles 45814-45816 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the assumptions and objectives of consumer protection, justifies the conclusion that the separate proceedings introduced in these provisions do not constitute an adequate normative response to the specificity of disputes between entrepreneurs and consumers.
L’articolo si propone – visto che nel codice di procedura civile manca una disciplina unificata dedicata al riconoscimento delle cause in materia di diritto agrario da parte dei tribunali – di stabilire se, alla luce delle disposizioni in vigore e delle consolidate opinioni dottrinali, esistano premesse che permettano di individuare un modello procedurale in grado di far affrontare questo tipo di cause. L’articolo analizza due opzioni non mutuamente esclusive: da una parte l’ammettere di avviare procedimenti separati in materia di diritto agrario, dall’altra il sottoporre il loro riconoscimento a tribunali specializzati. In conclusione, si è ritenuto che, data la difficoltà di attuare un criterio oggettivo, relativo alla specificità delle cause, e non alle proprietà dei soggetti, ma cruciale nel qualificare le cause per i procedimenti separati. il primo concetto vada scartato. Tale soluzione non è neanche supportata da argomentazioni storiche. Più realistica sembra la soluzione che presuppone di creare sezioni o collegi giudicanti specializzati da inserire all’interno di una struttura già funzionante della magistratura.
EN
The aim of the considerations – in the absence in the Code of Civil Procedure of a unified regulation devoted to the recognition by courts of cases in agricultural law – is to determine whether, in the light of the current legislation as well as the established views of the doctrine, there are premises for the separation of the procedural model of handling this type of cases. Two not mutually exclusive options are analysed: the admissibility of instituting separate proceedings in agricultural law cases, and recognition of such cases by specialised jurisdiction. In conclusion it is assumed that due to the difficulty of implementing the essential criterion for the qualification of cases to separate proceedings pertaining to their specificity rather than the proper jurisdictions of the entities involved, the first concept should be rejected. Moreover, this concept cannot be supported by any historical reasons. A more realistic solution seems to be based on the creation of specialised divisions or panels of judges adjudicating within the functioning structure of the judiciary.
PL
Celem rozważań – wobec braku w kodeksie postępowania cywilnego zunifikowanej regulacji poświęconej rozpoznawaniu przez sądy spraw z zakresu prawa rolnego – jest ustalenie, czy w świetle obowiązujących przepisów, a także utrwalonych poglądów doktryny istnieją przesłanki do wyodrębnienia procesowego modelu załatwiania tego rodzaju spraw. W artykule przeanalizowano dwie niewykluczające się wzajemnie opcje: dopuszczalność utworzenia postępowania odrębnego w sprawach z zakresu prawa rolnego oraz poddanie ich rozpoznawania sądownictwu wyspecjalizowanemu. W konkluzji rozważań przyjęto, że ze względu na trudność w realizacji kluczowego dla kwalifikacji spraw do postępowań odrębnych kryterium przedmiotowego, odnoszącego się do specyfiki spraw, a nie właściwości podmiotów, pierwszą koncepcję należy odrzucić. Takie rozwiązanie nie ma oparcia także w argumentach historycznych. Bardziej realne wydaje się rozwiązanie oparte na utworzeniu wyspecjalizowanych wydziałów lub składów orzekających w ramach funkcjonującej struktury sądownictwa.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.