On possibility of coincidence (combination) of remedial statuses of civil procedures participants

In the article A.V. Yudins opinion is argued that statuses of the personsparticipating in cases, and persons promoting justice are not permanent because participants of the process can easily change their remedialstatus, and also combine remedial statuses of persons participating in the process and persons promoting justice. In article thethought is explained that remedial figures of the claimant and the third party declaring independent requirements concerning the subjectof dispute are absolutely incompatible owing to the fact that their requirements for the dispute are of mutually exclusive character. It isalso proved that coincidence of remedial statuses of the party and the third party which does not declare independent requirements concerningthe subject of dispute because the third party without independent requirements is the participant of material legal relationshipadjoining the disputable one. In cases when the same person is both the claimant (creditor) and the respondent (debtor) the algorithm ofthe courts behaviour exists, contrary to A.V. Yudins opinion. This algorithm is dictated by the lack of prospect of continuing the proceedingin connection with the termination of disputable legal relationship and depends on concrete behaviour of the claimant as theinitiator of the process of dispute between the claimant and the respondent. While there are rights, freedom and the legitimate interests,which the public prosecutor demands to protect judicially, there are also concrete bearers of these rights, freedom and legitimate interests.It means that in any litigation on protection of the rights and legitimate interests there always is a claimant, as the prospectivebearer of the disputable right or interest. The public prosecutor, who made the claim of protection of the rights, legitimate interests oftheir owners on his/her own behalf, occupies the position of the claimant in the remedial sense in the process. Position about the inadmissibilityof interrogation of persons participating in the case, including the judicial representative, as witnesses is proved. Interrogationof the specified persons as witnesses will deprive the judicial representative of the possibility to carry out representation functions,and other persons participating in the case - of the possibilities to use their rights and fulfil duties according to the principles of optionalityand competitiveness.

Keywords

Authors

References