Implementation of Objectives of an Adversarial Civil Process in a Rule-of-Law Social State

Abstract

Objectives pursued in an adversarial civil process should comply with the principles of the rule-of-law State. Objectives pursued in civil proceedings include, inter alia, a universal objective to eliminate obstacles to the enjoyment of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. The objectives can be classified by being divided into original and derivative. The original objectives form the basis of a civil case and the derivative objectives are implemented as a result of the case proceedings. Objective right protection belongs to derivative objectives. This objective cannot serve as a basis for a civil action in court without being associated with the protection of a subjective right. Implementation of an objective to resolve a dispute requires a special procedural regime for dealing with labor, housing and family matters where the parties are joined by local social and legal environment that continues to exist after the court passes a decision. In particular, it is possible to engage public authorities responsible for the protection of relevant rights of citizens and to impose on them, in exceptional cases, the duty to exercise control over observance of the rights of citizens during a certain period of time after a court decision has been made to satisfy the claim. The task of protecting the rights belonging to individuals does not exclude seeking truth from objectives of the adversarial civil procedure. Thus, the notion of "fair trial" should be included in Procedural Law. At the same time, there are no reasons to use the notion of "fair trial" in Procedural Lw, since it results in the possibility of countering procedural law with substantive law. Procedural equality, which forms a prerequisite for the implementation of objectives of the adversarial civil procedure, inherently incorporates equality of possibilities to exercise procedural rights. Therefore, a justified derogation from the equality of procedural rights does not amount to an exception to the principle of procedural equality. Inequality of parties in their procedural rights and opportunities may be expressed in the form of property benefits, procedural preferences and procedural advantages. Procedural advantages of one of the parties require the court to use the mechanisms to equalize the procedural capacity of all parties involved.