Efficiency of civil and procedural regulation of certain judicial procedures in connection with the martial law and temporary occupation

Abstract

Summary: The article determines the effectiveness of civil procedural regulation of certain court procedures in martial law and temporary occupation on the basis of scientific and practical analysis of the procedure for changing territorial jurisdiction due to the termination of the court hearing of case and the mechanism for resuming lost proceedings. These procedures will in many cases be used in combination and have become key to ensuring that citizens exercise their constitutional right on access to justice. The urgency of the application of these procedures today is due to the imposition of martial law, in connection with which the courts in some areas have stopped working. A description of the procedure for transferring the case to another court on this basis is given. An overview of the provisions of the Laws “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” and “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”, which defines the mechanism for changing the territorial jurisdiction of cases considered by courts in the territory where martial law is imposed. It is considered a situation when the case materials in paper form cannot be transferred for objective reasons (the court that stopped working is in the temporarily occupied territory or the territory of hostilities, or the case materials were destroyed or lost during the transfer). It turns out that this does not preclude the transfer of the case as a procedure for changing jurisdiction, as the case is transferred as a relevant legal dispute or other legal issue on which civil proceedings have been initiated with a single unique number. It is argued the conclusion that the transfer of case under jurisdiction will be considered completed from the moment the new court accepts such a case for proceedings, and not from the moment of the decision to change jurisdiction. It is justified, if in connection with the change of jurisdiction the unfinished case was not transferred to another court and (or) was not accepted by the new court for proceedings to continue its consideration, then after the restoration of jurisdiction such case should be continued by the court whose work was resumed. It is noted that during transfer of the case under jurisdiction it may also be addressed the issue of resumption of lost proceedings in connection with the loss of case materials. It is emphasized that in contrast to the goal of restoring lost “completed” court proceedings, which pursues individual procedural goals, the goal of restoring lost yet unfinished court proceedings will be to provide a real opportunity to exercise all components of the constitutional right to justice, including access to justice and the whole set of procedural rights that arose to the parties of the case in connection with the filing of a lawsuit and the opening of proceedings in a case reviewed by a court whose territorial jurisdiction has changed. It is substantiated the feasibility of introducing a mechanism for resuming lost but still unfinished court proceedings in order to ensure the continuation of consideration of a previously initiated case by a new court. Key words: civil proceedings, court, civil case, jurisdiction, lost proceedings, martial law, temporary occupation