You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Prezentujemy Państwu kolejny tom Systemu Prawa Procesowego Cywilnego, który dotyczy postępowania przed sądem pierwszej instancji. Na niniejszy tom składają się opracowania czterech Autorów, wybitnych znawców prawa procesowego cywilnego: problematykę dowodów i postępowania dowodowego w procesie cywilnym całościowo i wnikliwie omówił K. Knoppek, obszerne i wieloaspektowe zagadnienie czynności decyzyjnych (zasady określające treść rozstrzygnięcia, zasady orzekania, wyroki, postanowienia i zarządzenia oraz uchwały, a także uzasadnianie orzeczeń) zostało opracowane przez A. Górę-Błaszczykowską, kwestia nakazów zapłaty została opisana przez B. Karolczyka, część poświęcona rektyfikacji wyroków w procesie cywilnym jest dziełem K. Lubińskiego. Wydanie uwzględnia nowele procesowe, które zostały uchwalone w ostatnim okresie. Pogłębioną teoretyczną analizę i syntezę poszczególnych konstrukcji procesowych związanych z tytułową problematyką wzbogacono judykatami dotyczącymi konkretnych kwestii interpretacyjnych.
National civil justice systems are deeply rooted in national legal cultures and traditions. However, in the past few decades they have been increasingly influenced by integration processes at the regional, supra-national and international level. As a by-product of the emergence of economic and political unions and globalisation processes there is pressure to harmonise or even unify the way in which national civil justice systems operate. In an attempt to create a ‘genuine area of justice’, new unified procedures are being developed, which operate in parallel with national civil procedures, and sometimes even strive to replace them. As a reaction to the forces that endeavour to harmonise and unify procedural laws and practices, an opposing trend is gaining momentum: one that insists on diversity and pluralism of national civil procedures. This book focuses on the evolution of procedural reforms in various jurisdictions and the ongoing transformation of national civil justice systems.
During the past decade, private enforcement of competition law has slowly taken off in Europe. However, major differences still exist among Member States. By harmonizing a number of procedural rules, the Damages Directive aimed to establish a level playing field among EU Member States. This timely book represents the first assessment of the implementation of the Damages Directive. Offering a comparative perspective, key chapters provide an up-to-date account of the emerging trends in private enforcement of competition law in Europe.
This book consists of general reports of the International Conference on Judicial Management from Comparative Perspective. This conference held on November 8–10, 2017, at Tianjin University, was organized by China Law Society (CLS) and International Association of Procedural Law Congress (IAPL). The general reporters are prominent scholars who have been selected worldwide by the IAPL Presidium to organize national reporters who shall do researches of his/her own state under the guide of the general reporter’s questionnaire on the specific subject. By this way, the comparative studies are trying to depend on national researches but overcome the general style of “talk past each other.” Moreover, the general reports summarize and give comment on the various system, phenomena or situation from comparative perspective, from which the audience will read their own orientation, doctrines and theories.
This volume was developed as part of a cooperative project of the European Law Institute (ELI) and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Unidroit), dealing with civil procedure law. The long-term project began in February 2014, as a joint endeavour to adapt the American Law Institute/Unidroit Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure to the European legal environment, and ended in 2020 with the approval of the ELI-Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. Featured in this volume, the Rules are accompanied by comments. They take into account the diverse traditions in Europe concerning civil procedure law and aim to find a common thread in them. Therefore, they not only consider the similarities but also the differences in order to gain a solution that does not favour one legal system but combines aspects of them all, fostering effectiveness and fairness in civil procedure.
The challenges courts face today all over the world can only be solved in close cooperation between judges and academics. The anthology brings judges from China, Germany, Slovenia, England and Wales and Norway and academics together for a cross-border dialogue.
Profesor doktor habilitowany Tadeusz Wiśniewski bezpośrednio po ukończeniu studiów został etatowym aplikantem sądowym w Sądzie Wojewódzkim we Wrocławiu. (...) Kolejnymi etapami życia i awansu zawodowego w ramach cywilistycznej drogi sędziowskiej stały się: stanowisko sędziego (od 1979 r.), później prezesa Sądu Rejonowego dla Wrocławia-Śródmieścia, a od 24.07.1982 r. sędziego Sądu Wojewódzkiego we Wrocławiu, które łączył początkowo z pełnieniem obowiązków wizytatora do spraw cywilnych, a następnie przewodniczącego Wydziału Cywilno-Rewizyjnego. W 1978 r. ukończył Studium Podyplomowe Prawa Sądowego w Popowie. Miał wówczas szczęście, że wykłady prowad...
Worldwide, in both litigation and arbitration, the term ‘declaration’ refers to both what is sought by the parties and what is granted by the judicial authority. In the latter case, it can be construed as a remedy known as ‘declaratory relief’, where the plaintiff seeks an authoritative judicial statement of the legal relationship. Although of enormous significance in dispute resolution, declaratory relief has not been analysed in detail until this deeply informed study. The book’s main focus is on declaratory relief relating to disputes resolved within the framework of international commercial arbitration and litigation. Focusing on the notion of ‘legal interest’ – which the...
Greater efficiency in civil dispute resolution is very much dependent on organized but fair fact-finding. Under European law, however, no clear-cut categorisation of means of evidence exists as yet, and significantly diverging interpretations persist of what is considered 'evidence' in the sense of the foundational Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 (EER). The EER fails to provide comprehensive rules for many other aspects of evidence taking, pointing instead to national legislation for solutions. As long as evidentiary rules remain different from country to country, there is an inherent risk of conflict of laws between different systems in the course of cooperation between courts in cros...