Legal Consequence of Irregular Request for Evidence as Procedural Action in Civil Litigation in Bulgaria
Abstract
Request for evidence in its essence is an expression of will containing statement for type of evidence mean or circumstance to be established with it. Means of evidence are stated by the parties through request for evidence. As an expression of will the request for evidence contains a statement about knowledge of the type of evidence mean and the circumstances to be established with it. The request for individualization of the request for evidence as procedural action is with review of a clear outline of the request’s scope – the one the procedural action is directed towards– the type of evidence and circumstances to be established with the requested evidence. In case of irregular procedural action the court directs the party what the irregularity of the procedural action is and how it can be remedied as determines a term for the remedy. In case of nonexecution of the court’s direction within set term the legal consequence for this omission is it is considered not performed. The drawn conclusion is that the court shall not rule on the permissibility and reasonableness of the request for evidence as incurs preclusion for the party to collect evidence.
Full Text: PDF DOI: 10.15640/jlcj.v3n1a12
Abstract
Request for evidence in its essence is an expression of will containing statement for type of evidence mean or circumstance to be established with it. Means of evidence are stated by the parties through request for evidence. As an expression of will the request for evidence contains a statement about knowledge of the type of evidence mean and the circumstances to be established with it. The request for individualization of the request for evidence as procedural action is with review of a clear outline of the request’s scope – the one the procedural action is directed towards– the type of evidence and circumstances to be established with the requested evidence. In case of irregular procedural action the court directs the party what the irregularity of the procedural action is and how it can be remedied as determines a term for the remedy. In case of nonexecution of the court’s direction within set term the legal consequence for this omission is it is considered not performed. The drawn conclusion is that the court shall not rule on the permissibility and reasonableness of the request for evidence as incurs preclusion for the party to collect evidence.
Full Text: PDF DOI: 10.15640/jlcj.v3n1a12
Browse Journals
Journal Policies
Information
Useful Links
- Call for Papers
- Submit Your Paper
- Publish in Your Native Language
- Subscribe the Journal
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Contact the Executive Editor
- Recommend this Journal to Librarian
- View the Current Issue
- View the Previous Issues
- Recommend this Journal to Friends
- Recommend a Special Issue
- Comment on the Journal
- Publish the Conference Proceedings
Latest Activities
Resources
Visiting Status
Today | 33 |
Yesterday | 176 |
This Month | 3857 |
Last Month | 4719 |
All Days | 1925020 |
Online | 7 |