Appeal of notarial deeds or refusal to perform them in court in Ukraine: historical and legal aspect of study (middle of the 14th - middle of the 17th century)

Abstract

The article is devoted to judicial control over notarial activity during the Polish-Lithuanian rule on Ukrainian lands (mid-XIV - mid-XVII centuries).
 The importance of conducting historical and legal studies of the institution of challenging notarial acts or refusal to perform them before the court is noted. The prerequisites for the formation of the notary institution in the specified time period are studied. In particular, it is indicated that the intensification of commodity-money relations led to the growth and development of various contractual forms of economic transactions. The practice of concluding contracts and other transactions in writing is gradually spreading, especially when the state begins to demand it. But private acts in Poland during the 14th and 15th centuries, and in Lithuania until the middle XVI century were treated as secondary evidence in contrast to witness statements. However, the situation is gradually changing with the emergence of the so- called "right of eternity”, which was expressed in the fact that a certain private document entered in the court record book received not just legal force, but became indisputable evidence in the event of a dispute in the future. It was not required to confirm or deny it with the testimony of witnesses.
 The legal status of officials who, along with their main powers, were called to exercise powers of a notarial nature are being investigated. It is concluded that in this case it is not possible to talk about the introduction of the notary as an independent institution, since the official was primarily entrusted with the duties of performing the powers that were determined by his position (the voivode managed the voivodship, the headman managed the county, judges judged, the court clerk recorded procedural actions, etc.). The specified officials were at different levels of management and had different legal status. The resulting situation determined the peculiarity of judicial control over the activities of officials who recorded private acts in court books or made extracts from them. In particular, criminal or civil liability was assumed for improper maintenance of court books. On the basis of this, it is concluded that within the framework of criminal and civil legal means it was possible to control the behavior of officials who entered private acts in court books or made an extract from them. But this does not confirm the presence in the legislation of an independently developed procedure, not related to the imposition of criminal or property liability, the purpose of which would be exclusively to check the legality of the notarial action taken or its refusal.