(In)compatibility of Procedural Preclusions with the Goals of Civil Justice: An Ongoing Debate in Slovenia

Abstract

AbstractSlovenian doctrine acknowledges that the following belong among the goals of civil justice: the resolution of disputes, vindication of the parties’ rights, affirmation of substantive legal order and its underlying social values and policies, promotion of uniform application of law and development of law through case law, predictability and legal certainty. However, the key issue concerns the relation between all these goals, especially in the case of procedural instruments, which are compatible only with some of these goals, while they adversely affect the others. In Slovenia, a heated debate concerning the goals of civil justice has emerged especially in regard to the introduction of ‘preclusions’ – the judge’s power to disregard facts asserted and evidence adduced past the time limits that are imposed, whether by the law itself or set by the court. The author therefore presents the regulation of preclusions following the latest reforms of Slovenian civil procedural law. Herein, the notion of such powers of the judge are critically assessed from the viewpoint of the goals of civil justice.KeywordsSubstantive QualityCivil ProcedureLegal CertaintyOpposing PartyJudicial DiscretionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.