Transformation of the procedural powers of the court regarding the application of a proper and effective way of protecting civil rights

Abstract

The article focuses on the problem of rejection of the claim due to the plaintiff’s choice, although provided by law or contract (that is, proper), of an ineffective way of protecting the violated right in a specific legal relationship. The mentioned problem is considered in the context of the new draft law, which proposes to establish a ban on the refusal to satisfy the claim on the grounds of the plaintiff’s choice of an ineffective method of defense, if such a method is provided for by law or contract. The need to transform the procedural powers of the court regarding the application of a proper and effective way of protecting civil rights is substantiated. A scientific and practical analysis of specific judgments of the Supreme Court is carried out, in which a position is expressed regarding the proper and effective way to protect civil rights. The concept of ways to protect civil rights through the disclosure of their purpose is characterized. An understanding of the concept of an appropriate way of protecting rights is given. The ratio of features of propriety and efficiency, as well as the conditions of application of such methods of protection, is determined. The conclusion is argued, if the plaintiff has chosen a specific method of protecting his right and such a method is appropriate (that is, provided by law or a contract for disputed legal relations and corresponds to the nature of the delinquency), then due to the principle of dispositivity, the court has no grounds to refuse in granting the plaintiff of protection in the method chosen by him, since such a method must be recognized as effective under any conditions, because, given its consolidation in the norms of material law for specific disputed legal relations, it will necessarily lead to the material and legal consequences required by the plaintiff. At the same time, it is concluded that it is worth talking about effectiveness only in the aspect of the court’s application of a method of protection not provided for by law or contract. It is substantiated that since the task of civil proceedings is addressed specifically to the court, therefore, consideration and resolution of civil cases by the court should be carried out specifically for the purpose of effective protection of violated rights. Therefore, it is emphasized that it is the court that should be entrusted with full responsibility for the effective restoration of rights, and therefore the duty to choose the correct method of protecting the violated right, effective and adequate in the specific disputed legal relations of the parties, with consideration of the factual circumstances of the case established by the court. In this regard, it is justified that the method of defense specified by the plaintiff in the statement of claim should not be decisive for the court, if the court comes to the conclusion that, under the specific circumstances of the case, the method of defense chosen by the plaintiff is not appropriate, but to eliminate the legal dispute and protect the violated rights of the plaintiff will be possible only in another way, not provided for by law or contract (but which will be effective). At the end, it is stated that relevant legislative changes, which would provide grounds for the protection of civil rights (in particular, features of possible violations of civil rights), determine the purpose of protecting civil rights (because efficiency will be determined precisely by comparing the declared goal with the obtained result), as well as establishing the conditions for providing legal protection (taking into account the grounds for applying an appropriate and/or effective method of protecting civil rights). Key words: civil rights, violation, legal protection, method of civil law protection, proper method, effective method, plaintiff, court, civil process, provision of protection, effective protection of rights