S a a r b r ü c k e r   B i b l i o t h e k



Ani Davtyan, Doctor of Science of Law, Yerevan (Armenia)

Patterns of civil procedural legislation development in the countries of former USSR (Armenia): principles of civil procedure

About the principles
  • Principle of Competition
  • Principle of Publicity
  • Principle of verbality of proceedings
  • Principle of legality and principle of national language
  • New principles

  • Introduction

    By the end of year 1991, as a result of complicated and contradictory processes, which brought about the disintegration of USSR, all the sovereign states of the former Soviet Union faced the problem of new legislation formation or renovation of the old framework and its development.

    Countries of former USSR inherited the legal culture, in which "both the Law system and terminology of jurisprudence, established by efforts of European universities and tracing back to Roman law"(1) were mostly retained.

    The law system of any country is developing in compliance with its own national, cultural and legal customs...but world countries are not only developing by their local laws, but also conforming to some general tendencies, which promote facilitation of search for optimal legal institutions, by releasing legislator from the necessity to "invent a bike".

    Even before formation of the socialist law system Armenia had experienced an indirect impact of Roman law that is considered a basis of Roman-German law family.

    Adoption of foreign legal norms in Armenia is related to Christianity adoption in Armenia in 301. Initially Armenian Christian church mainly received norms of religious nature, later on - secular laws of foreign origin.(2)

    In IV-IX centuries in Armenia there were monuments of law, translated from Greek and Byzantine. One of those monument of late-roman law - Syrian-Roman Code, the original of which is not kept and is known in science by Syrian, Armenian and Arabian translations.(3) From Byzantine monuments of law in Armenia the following normative acts were translated: Ekloga (incompletely), Novella of Irina Empress (795-802) about the witnesses; 83rd and 123rd Novellas of Justinian and others.(4) There is no authentic data concerning application of Roman law sources in Armenia. However, proceeding from the fact that these sources were translated for using and taking into account the medieval court practice, when the judges were absolutely free to apply the law, Armenian legal theory experts suppose that sources of Roman law were applied in Armenia.(5)

    In Armenian juridical literature there are opposite views as well. Thus, Babalyan considers that "law reception as a process is voluntary and desirable", and "Justinian forcibly imposes its law to slackening ancient Armenian foundations. Justinian conducts military reorganization by merging Armenian and Byzantine troops, carrying out civil reorganization, publishes several Armenian Novellas".(6) Proceeding from these observations the expert of legal theory considers that there was no reception of Roman law in Armenia. Besides, L. Babalyan refers to the research of A. Megavoryan, who, while studying the impact of Roman law in Armenia considers it as indirect, pointed out the definite similarity in common law of Romans and Armenians in 1894.(7)

    Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, the conclusion that there was no reception of Roman law in Armenia is to be viewed as insufficiently well-grounded, as it is based on analysis of only one source - Justinian's Novellas. As to outstanding monuments of Armenian legal science: Code by Mkhitar Gosh (1184), Code by Smbat Sparapet (1265), Rules of Davit, the son of Alavik (X-XII) etc., which were studied both by Armenian and Austrian scientists, they are independent and original sources of national law.(8) Based on the fact that Armenia adopted or was induced to adopt Roman-Byzantine laws in a certain period of history, and in this historical period these were the acting law in Armenia, it would be more correct to consider the Roman law as having definite impact on law development process in Armenia by indirect reception.

    During the socialism the Armenian law was developing as a part of the USSR law system. As it is known, the socialist law appeared in year 1917 as the soviet state was formed. The soviet law was mainly reformed following the theory of Marx and Lenin about the new type of state and law. But there was no full isolation from the other law owing to both the inevitable exchange of ideas, juridical constructions and experience, and the use of traditional legal principles.(9)

    According to the generally acknowledged classification of law systems, the socialist law system represented the third law family, differing from Roman-German law family and the family of common law.(10) This observation of the famous French comparative analyst R. David was based on the following arguments: 1) creation of new type of society, where there will be no state and law, was the ideology of socialism 2) the sole source of the socialist law is the revolutionary lawmaking activity of legislator, which expresses the will of people, led by communist party; 3) private law concedes its dominant place to the public law.(11) Proceeding from these differences, the socialist law was distinguished in a separate law system, and subsequently - in a separate law family. To substantiate this observation R. David notes that if compared with the countries of Roman-German law family, the law systems of socialist countries alone with some similarity have such differences that allow to consider (just as the lawyers of socialist countries do) the socialist law systems as having diverged from Roman-German law family into an independent one. At the same time, the legal theory expert is sure that the conception of socialist law was not new, since K. Marx and V. Lenin developed as lawyers in countries belonging to the Roman-German law family.

    Transition to market economy made by the countries of former USSR, including Armenia, as well as adoption of new Constitution of RA on July 5, 1995 declared Rule-Of-Law in Armenia, reforms and the new laws in different branches of legislation, called to review of RA Civil Procedural Code, in force since year 1964.(12) The transition to new Civil Procedural Code in Armenia occurred instantly, without any attempts to renew the former one. The Civil Procedural Code of RA was adopted by RA National Assembly on June17, 1998. Its final version was developed by the RA, Ministry of Justice, synthesizing two projects worked out by task group of RA Government and project team of Law Department of Yerevan State University.(13)

    The study of the new Civil Procedural Code shows that although its adoption was an issue of great importance, necessitated by the time, this “procedural constitution” was passed hastily, causing criticism and disapproval of Armenian legal theory experts. Thus, in the opinion of some procedural law experts the new Civil Procedural Code comprises many structural and essentially juridical mistakes, none of procedural institutions is completely regulated, and solution of many issues is left at discretion of court.(14)

    Thus, even before the socialist law system Armenia experienced the indirect impact of Roman law, which is considered a basis of Roman-German law family. Being a recipient of socialist law, it inherited socialist legal culture, based on Roman law. Even if only in terms of institutional level, the modern Armenian law remains in the Roman-German law family. In Armenian legal system the leading role is given to the Law, based on overwhelming majority of Roman law institutes. The codification is a juridical technique. Notwithstanding the increasing role of court practice, the latter also follows the law. The law is divided into public, private etc.

    These features are characteristic to the countries of Roman-German law family. Therefore the acting law system in Armenia belongs to Roman-German law family.

    About the principles

    The contemporary period of development of civil procedural legislation in Armenia is characterized by the adoption of new Civil Procedural Code in 1998 and necessity of its further improvement.

    Any change of procedural legislation, elaboration and passing of new Civil Procedural Code, as well as its renewal first of all called for a change in comprehension and contents of the principles.

    The existed understanding of some principles in the civil procedural law in Armenia changed both in theory and in practice, after adoption of new Civil Procedural Code in 1998.

    As it is known, in the civil procedural law the following criteria are used to define principles: principles – the essence of idea of legal conscience, legal theory, and principles, general rules, stipulated by the norms of civil procedural law.

    In modern procedural literature there are different views on the definition of principles. Thus, B.M. Semyenov considers that principles of law make its ideological and political basis, express a class orientation, a specific social type, and features of law.(15) Others (Yudelson K.S., Bukina V.S.) assert that principles are the essence of idea of legal conscience, legal theory(16). Still others (Gurvich M.A., Bonner T.A.) are of opinion that principles are the basic rules, stipulated by the norms of civil procedural law(17). Avdyukov M.G. substantiates this point of view by the argument that the principle of law is defined in norms of law, otherwise it must be disengaged from the acting law norms(18), as the legal idea, conception, not stipulated in the norms of law, remains in the branches of legal study, doctrine (Treushnikov M.K., Molchanov V.V.)(19). Chechina N.A. considers that the principles of civil procedural law predetermine the character and contents of activity exercised by the subject of the given law branch(20).

    As to understanding principles as conceptual - political basis, expressing the class essence of the law, the criticism on this perspective is reasonable to the effect that the arguments of a law being "class-based" are obviously exaggerated, since the law or its norms essentially are of a value, common to the mankind(21).

    It is most correct to consider understanding of principles as basic rules or, to be more precise, common rules, reflected in the norms of law, because if the matter concerns principles of specific branches of the legal theory namely civil procedure, they are nothing but rules, stipulated in the norms of civil procedural law. It should be noted that in the procedural theory the concepts of civil procedural law and those of civil court proceedings are identical. Since the principles of civil procedural law are implemented in the procedural activity, they are not only principles of law, but the principles of civil court proceedings as well(22).

    Analysis of observations about the concept of principles makes it possible to formulate the following definition: the principles of civil procedural law or court proceedings are common principles stipulated in the norms of civil court procedural legislation, the rules, the legal force of which predefines the whole progress (course) of civil process and relations between the court and persons, participating in the case.

    Classification of the principles of civil procedural law in the procedural literature both of the countries of former USSR and Armenia is made by different criteria. Different features in the science become criteria for such classifications, first of all - the character of normative source in which the given principle is fixed. Proceeding from this, the following are distinguished: constitutional principles and principles of civil court proceedings, stipulated by branch legislation(23).

    Depending on the number of law branches the respective principles act they divide into inter-branch and branch-specific one(24).

    Finally, principles are classified by the object of regulation. On this ground the principles of civil procedural law are divided into two big groups: organizational-functional, that is, being at the same time principles of justice (court organizational) and functional, as well as principles defining the procedural activity of the court and participants of the proceedings (functional)(25).

    Besides, in the legal literature there is another classification of the principles of civil procedural law, made by other criteria(26).

    Principle of Competition. After adopting new Civil Procedural Code in the civil procedure of Armenia the contents of competition principle was radically changed. By the Civil Procedural Code of 1964 in force before, in case of necessity the court not only could offer the parties to present certain evidence, but collected it by itself, herewith substantiating the existence of “inquisition basis” in court proceedings. “While studying circumstances of the case the court, was searching for the so-called objective truth, and essentially acted as an investigator in the civil procedure, worked for the parties, which were practically responsible for nothing and could not care about evidence's presentation, proving what they insist on, its justification.”(27). With renewing RA Civil Procedural Code this contradictory combination of principles of court’s active role and of competition was reviewed.

    It should be remembered that previously in accordance with Article 50 of acting Civil Procedural Code(28), either party should prove the circumstances it refers to as a basis for its demands and objections. Evidence is presented by the parties and other persons participating in the case. In case of evidence insufficiency the court offers the parties and other persons participating in the case to present additional evidence or collects it on its initiative. That was the point of the competition principle until the adoption of new Civil Procedural Code.

    The development of competition principle in the civil court proceedings of Armenia was possible by limitation of “court intervention”. In that form, set by the legislator in which the “court assistance” was implemented, the latter was nothing but providing the court with additional procedural function – the function of attorney. The court cannot and must not offer the parties to present additional evidence. This prerogative belongs to the attorney. The court cannot combine the functions of a court and an attorney, otherwise the limitation of competition principle takes place. Moreover, if the court assists one of the parties in such manner, the principle of competition is being breached, as the court helps one of the parties “to win” the case.

    What is the content of the competition principle as per new Civil Procedural Code of RA? The principle of competition is stipulated in Article 6 of RA Civil Procedural Code, according to which the court proceedings of civil cases is realized on the basis of competition and parity of the parties. The principle of competition is disclosed in Articles 48, 49, 50, 53 of Civil Procedural Code of RA. It says that either party should prove the circumstances it refers to as groundings for its demands and objections (RA Civil Procedural Code, Article 48); evidence is presented to the court by the persons participating in the case (RA Civil Procedural Code, Article 49, part 1); the party who has no possibility to obtain the evidence, which is held by the person participating or not participating in the case, can apply to the court with motion to demand that evidence (RA Civil Procedural Code, Article 49, part 2). That is considered to be an essence of court assistance to the parties. In case it is impossible or difficult to present the evidence, the court is entitled - on the initiative of parties or its own initiative - to investigate or examine it in place of its location (RA Civil Procedural Code, Article 50, part 1).

    The court can and must explain the procedural situation, assist the parties to better understand the case in order to prompt the party to improve its position with respect to the opposite party, to submit, at the party's discretion, the evidence on the case held. By the virtue of the principle of competition the subject of proving as well as the “limits of proving” are to be defined by the parties but not the court.

    The realization of the principle of competition in the civil procedure means that the court should make a decision concerning the dispute, only proceeding from the evidence, which have been presented on the initiative of the parties. The court is not to request the parties or offer them to present the evidence, which have not been presented by the parties proceeding from the procedural-tactical standpoints.

    In Armenian civil procedure the norms of court assistance in terms of offering the parties to present additional evidence, are absent, i.e. there are no limitations regarding the principle of competition. However, the norm of the court offering the parties to present the necessary evidence should have been kept in Armenian legislation, with instruction to apply it with respect to the cases derived from family relations, when these instructions of the court are necessary for the definition of the subject of proving, taking into account the constitutional provision that the marriage and family are under special protection of the state.

    Thus, it would be more correct to formulate Article 48 of RA Civil Procedural Code, which defines the burden of proving as follows: “Either party should prove the circumstances, which it refers to as the grounds for its demands and objections. The evidence is presented by the parties and persons participating in the case. In each stage of the proceedings the court has to explain to the parties the circumstances of the case so as make it possible for them to present evidence in case of necessity.

    In case it is difficult for the parties and persons participating in the case to present additional evidence, the court by their motion assists them in evidence collection. With respect to the cases arising from family relations, the court defines the scope of factual circumstances relevant the case, it can initiate an instruction to collect evidence, as well as take into account the evidence, which has not been presented by the parties“.

    Principle of Publicity. The principle of publicity is to be understood as defined by legal procedure for hearing cases by the court of common jurisdiction, stipulating the general access of all interested citizens to the room of court session, as well as their right to make notes and fix all that is going on in the court session room(29). In the procedural theory the publicity for the parties and other persons participating in the case are differentiated – openness in the narrow sense of the word and the publicity for the public, or publicity(30).

    The publicity for the people or the publicity has independent meaning and implies the right of outside persons to appear in the court session room (public, representatives of mass media etc.)

    The principle of publicity in the civil procedural law of Armenia is a constitutional principle. According to Article 39 of RA Constitution, everyone has a right to a public hearing of his case by an independent and impartial court maintaining all requirements of justice under conditions of equality in order to regain the rights that have been violated as well as to ascertain the justification of accusations presented to him. The principle of publicity acting in the court proceedings of civil cases is stipulated in Article 8, 114 of RA Civil Procedural Code. According to RA Civil Procedural Code, Article 8, the civil cases are considered in open hearings. By the consent of the court, which examines the case and consent of the parties, during the case hearings filming and photographing as well as video-filming and broadcasting of the court session may be permitted (Article 114 of RA Civil Procedural Code).

    The principle of publicity acts in the civil procedure of Armenia with some limitation. Limitation of the principle of publicity is first of all envisaged by Constitution of RA. Thus, in particular, Article 39 of the RA Constitution stipulated that participation of mass media and representatives of society during all or part of court examination may be prohibited by law so as to protect the public moral, social order, state security, the parties’ privacy or the interests of justice. The Civil Procedural Code does not foresee the exhaustive list of bases or cases, when the examination of civil cases is performed with doors closed. According to the 2nd point of Article 8 of RA Civil Procedural Code the examination in camera is allowed in cases defined by law as well as in cases when the court satisfied the motion to conduct court hearings in camera for the purpose of protection of the secrecy of adoption, securing privacy of citizens or their families, and protection of commercial or other secrets. The ruling to conduct in camera examination is made by the court. In any case the court decision is published in the opened-door court session.

    However, it is considered that taking into account the interests of the parties, proceeding from which the court session is conducted with doors closed, the court decision is also to be published in a closed-door session. Following this consideration the norm of the following contents is to be added to Article 8 of RA Civil Procedural Code: “By the motion of the parties or on its own initiative, the court may publish in closed-door session the decision made on the cases, which were being heard in court session in camera”.

    Principle of verbality of proceedings. The competitive form of court proceedings is realized being based on the principle of verbality of proceedings, stipulated in Article 9 of RA Civil Procedural Code, according to which the examination of the case is realized in oral form. It means that the court session is conducted in oral form, the explanations of persons, participating in the case, testimonies of witnesses are stated to the court in oral form. In oral form the challenges, motions are made, petitions and applications are made, the decisions of the court are published.

    The examination of the civil case is also made verbally in appeal and supervisory instances. However, the oral form of court examination in the civil procedure of Armenia does not exclude written basis. Preparation of the civil case for court proceedings, fixing the process of court session in the protocol of court session and number of other procedural actions are realized in written. The RA Civil Procedural Code comprises exceptions and limitations of the principle of verbality of proceedings. Thus, written evidence, conclusions of experts are presented in written form (Articles 54, 62).

    Further development of principle of verbality of proceedings is possible towards its limitation for the purpose of speeding up and simplification of court proceedings. This involves introduction of written proceedings in certain cases.

    Thus provision with the following meaning might be added to the RA Civil Procedural Code: “Article….Written proceedings. By the consent of the parties, which can be declined only in case the circumstances concerning the case change, the court may examine the case in written proceedings.

    On its own initiative the court is entitled to examine the civil case in written proceedings: 1) with respect to property demands if the sum of the claim is considerable; 2) if the attendance of one of the parties is impossible by the reason of long distance or other valid reasons, set by the court”. In Article the sum of the claim is not mentioned, since it will be different for Russia and Armenia and may be exactly defined in the moment of its introduction. It is considered that this novella will promote speeding up of the proceedings of civil cases.

    Principle of legality and principle of national language. In the procedural literature of Armenia, as well as procedural theory of number of countries of the former USSR the principle of legality is considered among the principles, the meaning of which has lost its previous sense both in the theory and in the justice.

    The principle of legality is originated from the principle of socialist legality. Collapse of USSR, transition to market economy brought to change of comprehension of number of civil procedural law principles. But the "modification" of the principle of socialist legality led the experts of legal theory only to the thought that without adding "socialist" the principle has a right to exist independently. In this connection it is important to remember that the principle of socialist legality was put into socialist procedural theory with the reasoning that "soviet citizens must obey the laws because that laws are fair, and they are fair because they are being produced by the socialist state. The value of the principle of legality is defined by which regime is served with, what meaning is contained in acting legal norms "(31).

    Presently the principle of legality has lost its meaning not in terms of adding "socialist" but as a principle in general. The legality, as a principle, has a sense only under conditions of socialist economy and obeys its imperative prescriptions (32)".

    The legality is considered as an existence and realization form of the justice, but not the principle, that is, the rule of civil proceedings, therefore it seems that "legality" category is not considered as a principle.

    The principle of national language, which has been renewed in the title and is till now considered as a principle of state language of court proceedings in the procedural literature of countries of the former USSR, including Armenia, has lost its initial sense and meaning. The principle of national language of court proceedings formally expressed the position of Lenin on national policy in the sphere of justice implementation in the USSR, both in the criminal and the civil cases. Implicit observance of the requirement of the given principle had to assure the cases of access to justice for the vast masses regardless of which language they speak (33). The political meaning of the given principle is to secure also in future free language development of people of the USSR, full freedom of Soviet Union citizen to speak, bring up and teach the children in any language, to bar any privileges, restrictions or enforcements concerning the use of one or another language (34). The contents and meaning of this principle action in the civil procedure is observed in that it's implicit execution promotes the realization of other principles of civil proceedings (availability of court protection, dispositional nature, verbality etc.).

    The language of the justice is not and cannot be considered to be a condition in its way to access to justice. Moreover, the principle of state language is not a principle but a mean of justice realization, method of communication of the participants of civil procedure, which concerns neither the rules, nor the aim of the justice.

    Therefore it is considered that the principle of national language even in renewed form as a: "principle of state language of court proceedings" in the procedural literature of Armenia and other countries of the former Soviet Union cannot be placed among the principles.

    New principles. In the contemporary period of "tendencies of strengthening of procedural guaranties" the necessity of new procedural principles of constitutional level is ripening in domestic procedural theory of principles as well. The principle of the right of being heard is considered among those principles. It exists in the procedural law of European countries, for example in the procedural law of Germany (der Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör) (35).

    This principle is raised to the constitutional principle rank, as "the rule-of-law state is impossible without a right to be heard". According to Article 103 (par. 1) of the Basic Law of Germany, everyone has a right to be heard in the court. That is why the court cannot make a decision before giving opportunity to the parties to express their views; accordingly, it cannot make a decision without having heard their dispute. To breach the principle of the right to be heard means to breach the basic procedural right of citizens, which can be restituted by means of bringing a constitutional claim against the decision of the court, by which this principle was violated.

    For the purpose of securing the constitutional guarantees of the right of protection in the court proceedings it is to be considered expedient to introduce the concept of the principle of the right to be heard into civil procedure law of Armenia, by stipulating it in the Constitution, in the section on Justice. This innovation is especially opportune for Armenia, which experiences constitutional reorganizations. The following example convinces of the truth of the conclusion.

    In accordance with RA Constitution the rights of freedom and personal immunity are an indivisible part of human being and can be limited only in strictly defined cases, particularly when it is necessary for health protection. The Basic Law sets a strict control over the procedure of detention and freedom deprivation, including the procedure of compulsory placement of person in the psychiatric clinic to be subjected to measures of medical nature.

    Thus, Articles 174-177 of Civil Procedure Code of RA regulate the procedural order of the cases concerning compulsory medical treatment of the person in the psychiatric clinic. The question of hospitalization of the person in the psychiatric clinic is under the jurisdiction of the court, in territory of which the medical institution the person is placed in is located. Hereby the possibility of participation by the citizen being under treatment himself in the examination of application is secured. But the burden of proving is laid on the psychiatric institution on behalf of its representative. At the same time the person involuntarily hospitalized and its authorized representative are to be heard, i.e. they should have possibility to express their objections and argumentations, which is not foreseen by the acting Civil Procedural Code of RA.

    Thus, in the civil procedural law of Armenia the tendency towards its limitation in the development of principles of court proceedings can be observed. The prospect of procedural principles development is in fixing new procedural principles of constitutional level to secure guarantees in realization of procedural rights of citizens to court protection.

    (1) David R. Joffre-Spinozi K. Osnovnye pravovie sistemi sovremennosti, M., 1999, S. 24

    (2) Kazinyan G. S. Istoriya razvitiya ugolovnogo processa v Armenii. Yerevan, 1999. S. 19

    (3) Torosyan Kh. A. Sud i process v Armenii, Yerevan, 1985, S. 43

    (4) Samuelyan Kh. Istoriya drevnearmyanskogo prava. T. 1, Yerevan, 1939. S. 23; Torosyan Kh. A. Ukaz. soch. S. 44; Kazinyan G. S. Ukaz. Soch. S. 22

    (5) Torosyan Kh. A. Ukaz. Soch. Tan je

    (6) Babalyan L. A. Rimskoe pravo i sovremennost'. Voprosi pravovedeniya. 1998, N1.S.6-12

    (7) Babalyan L. A. Ukaz. soch. Tam je; Pervaya mejdunarodnaya konferenciya "Rimskoe pravo i ego recepciya", Vestnik Mosk. univ-ta, Ser 11. Pravo. 1998, N3.

    (8) Karst, Grundriß der Geschichte des armenischen Rechtes "Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenechaft", Shtuttgard, 1906, Bd. XIX, S.314-441; Kohler, Altsyrisches und armenisches Recht, Bd. XIX, S. 103-130. Karst, Grundriß der Geschichte des armenischen Rechtes "Zeischrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft", Shtuttgard, 1907, Bd. XX,S. 16-112; Samuelyan Kh. Istoriya drevnearmyanskogo prava. T 1. Yerevan, 1939.; Torosyan Kh. A. Sudoustroystvo i sudoproizvodstvo v srednevekovoy Armenia po sudebniku Mkhitara Gosha. Dis...kand. yurid. nauk. Yerevan, 1966 u dr.

    (9) Tikhomirov Yu. A. Kurs sravnitel'nogo proavovedeniya. M., 1996. S.125.

    (10) David R. Jofre-Spinozi K. Ukaz.Soch. 1999, S. 18

    (11) David R. Joffre-Spinozi K. Ukaz. Soch. 24

    (12) Davtyan A. G. Sudoproizvodstvo po grajdanskim delam I neobkhodimost’ ego obnovleniya v usloviyakh rinochnikh otnosheniy. “Azg”, 17 noyabrya, #222 (725) 1994. C. 4.

    (13) Proekt Grajdanskoprocessual’nogo kodeksa RA. Zakon I vlast’. Special’niy vipusk-3, oktyabr’, 1997

    (14) Petrosyan R.G. Nekotorie garantii I mekhanizmi sudebnoy zaschiti grajdanskikh prav v novom GPK. Voprosi pravovedeniya. Yerevan. 1999, N2-3.S.47

    (15) Kurs sovremennogo grajdanskogo processual’nogo prava. T.1. M., 1981.S.129; Semenov B.M. Konstitucionnie principi grajdanskogo sudoproizvodstva.M., 1982. S. 59-60;Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. Yarkova V.V. M., 1999. S.24; Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. Komissarova K.I. i Osipova Yu.K. M., 1996. S.23.

    (16) Yudel’son K.S. Sovetskiy grajdanskiy process.M., 1956. S.31-32; Bukina V.S. Principi sovetskogo grajdanskogo processual’nogo prava. Avtoref. Diss. …kand.yurid. nauk. L., 1975.S.5.

    (17) Gurvich M.A. Lekcii po sovetskomu grajdanskomu processu. M. 1950. S. 25; Bonner T.A. Princip dispozitivnosti sovetskogo grajdanskogo processual’nogo prava. M., 1987.

    (18) Avdyukov M.G. Sovetskiy grajdanskiy process. M., 1979. S. 18.

    (19) Grajdanskij process. Pod red. M.K Treushnikova. M., 2000. S.25.

    (20) Chechina N.A. Principi grajdanskogo processual’nogo prava. Aktual’nie problemi teorii i praktiki grajdanskogo processa. L. 1979, S. 53.

    (21) Grajdanskoe processual'noe pravo Rossii. Uchebnik. Pod red. M.S. Shakaryan M., 1999., S. 31.

    (22) Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. M.K. Treushnikova. M., 2000. S. 25

    (23) Grajdanskoe processual’noe pravo Rossii. Pod red. M.S. Shakaryan M.S., 1999., S.59.

    (24) Grajdanskoe processual’noe pravo Rossii. Pod red. M.S. Shakaryan M. S., tam je.

    (25) Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. M.K. Treushnikova., M., 2001. S.44.

    (26) Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. M.A. Gurvicha. M., 1975. S. 17-18; Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. V.A.Musina, N.A.Chichenoy, D.M. Chechota. M., 2002. S. 24-26

    (27) Izmeneniya GPK bili neobkhodimi (Kommentariy Predsedatelya Verkhovnogo suda RF V. Juykova). Zakonnost’. 1996, N3. S.18.

    (28) Grajdanskiy processual’niy kodeks Armenii 1964. Yerevan. 1982. (na arm. yaz.).

    (29) Kommentarii k grajdanskomu processual’nomu kodeksu. RSFSR…S.21.

    (30) Grajdanskiy process. Pod red. V.A.Chechinoy, D.M. Chechota. M., 1998.S.44.

    (31) David R., Joffre-Spinoza K. Osnovnie pravovie sistemi sovremennosti. M., 1999. S. 149.

    (32) David R., Joffre-Spinoza K. Ukaz. Soch. S.149.

    (33) Kurs sovetskogo grajdanskogo processual'nogo prava. T. 1. M., 1981. S. 129; Sovetskiy grajdanskiy process. M., 1989, S.34

    (34) Kurs sovetskogo grajdanskogo processual'nogo prava. T.1. M., 1981. S. 154. Programma KPSS. M., 1976. S.115.

    (35) Davtyan A.G. Grajdanskiy process v Germanii i v stranakh SNG. Yerevan, 2000. S. 86; Davtyan A.G. Grajdanskoe processual'noe pravo Germanii. M., 2000. S. 34.


    Zum GESAMTKATALOGZum ANFANG des Dokuments