Читать статья по мировой экономике, международным экономическим отношениям: "Коллизионные нормы в сфере гражданско-процессуальной деятельности" Страница 2

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

problem of determining their concept and structure (including rules on the resolution of conflict of jurisdiction). The aim of the study is to illustrate that there is a special category of rules in international private law and international civil procedure which prescribes the application of foreign civil procedure law, i.e. procedural conflict-of-laws rules. The task of the study is to show that the using of procedural law of the court’s country in the current international civil process is advisable to position not as a procedural imperative, but as a general conflict – of-laws binding. The relevant norms of national laws and international legal acts, examples from judicial practice are considered to solve mentioned tasks. The author gives a brief overview of doctrinal views on the problem raised in the article. Main research methods are: comparative law, comparative and retrospective analysis. Currently, the application of foreign civil procedure rules is a daily reality, and therefore it is possible to assert the existence of a special legal category “procedural conflict-of-laws rules”. The law of the court’s country in the international civil process should be approved not as a procedural imperative, but as a conflict-of-laws principle, as a general conflict-of-laws binding. Also the author proposes to define the conflict-of-laws rules as a procedural conflict-of-laws rules. Keywords: international private law, international civil process, procedural conflict-of-laws rules, foreign civil procedure rules, procedural conflict-of-laws question, conflict of jurisdiction. Approximately until the middle of the 20th century, private international law (hereinafter referred to as PIL) and international civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as IHL) had an unshakable principle: foreign public (including foreign civil procedural) law was not applied. In private law relations related to foreign legal order, it could only be a question of the application of foreign substantive private law. Since civil procedural law is a branch of public law, in IHL, only the lex processualis fori (the procedural law of the forum) was applicable. Until the 1960s, Soviet and foreign doctrine was dominated by the position that "the activities of the judicial bodies of a given state, as well as other bodies of the state, are determined only by the state's own law. It is inappropriate here to raise the question of a connecting factor, i.e. the law with which this relationship has the closest connection, since legal proceedings and related civil procedural relations, as a rule, are subject only to the court's own right." At the same time, the doctrine expressed the opposite point of view, the supporters of which defended the possibility and necessity of applying not only foreign substantive private law rules, but also foreign public law rules: "If the possibility of applying the norms of foreign public law is excluded, then in this case the judge cannot determine the citizenship of foreigners in accordance with their national legislation; it cannot apply foreign exchange laws; he may not apply foreign administrative laws to establish the legality of a foreign document issued by a notary public or an official of a foreign state; and it cannot even apply foreign substantive rules in the field of civil law, since all foreign legal norms are the result of the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. In the second half of the 20th century, the provision on the non-applicability of foreign civil procedural law lost its unconditionally imperative character. In the judicial practice of different countries, as early as the 1950s-1960s, there was a tendency to apply the norms of foreign civil procedural laws. law), but also their direct application. Thus, in May 1960, the People's Court of the Korosten District of the Ukrainian SSR, applying Article 311 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Polish People's Republic, warned the plaintiff Sh. about the liability for giving false testimony, which is not practiced in Soviet law. stipulates that the application of a rule of foreign law cannot be limited only on the basis that this rule is of a public law nature. A similar provision is established in many national laws on PIL : "Foreign law claimed by a conflict of laws rule shall. apply even if it is contained in the rules of public law" (Article 85 of the PIL Law of the Dominican Republic of 2014). Many representatives of modern doctrine advocate the establishment of an obligation to apply foreign procedural legal norms. The application by the court only of its own procedural law puts all participants in the process (both its own citizens and foreigners) in the same position, i.e. there is "equal treatment with unequal things" – a legal dispute related to a foreign legal order is considered as a national dispute. The procedural theory of the law of the court contradicts the protection of the rights of foreign persons6. The most reasoned concept of the application of foreign procedural law was proposed by the Hungarian scientist I. Sasi. He wrote that the strict requirement to apply only the law of the court in the process violates the connection between national substantive and procedural rules, since the norms of foreign substantive law are practically impossible to implement in the form of a procedural order of the law of the country of the court, which is alien to them. This hinders the achievement of objective truth and violates the connection between civil rights and freedoms of the individual in the material sense and their procedural forms.7 Justice requires that actions based on foreign. The main principle in the field of civil procedure should be the application of the law that has the closest connection with the legal proceedings, with the procedural act that can be appealed, and with the issues