The grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction in the civil process

Abstract

In this article has been researched the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction in the civil process. The author distinguishes the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as the functions and grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as the powers. Through the examples of the provisions of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine are made the conclusion, that the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as a function correlate with the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as the powers respectively as a whole to a part. It is emphasized, that one and the same ground of self-control powers can be covered by the different grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as the functions.

The author supports the segregation as the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction in the civil process a judicial error and change in circumstances of a civil case. For the first time in the theory of civil process to the grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction the author proposes to subsume an enforcement of the civil procedural rights by participants in case, as well as nonfulfillment of some procedural obligations by a participant of civil process.

It is pointed out, that a judicial error is the most widespread ground of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction. Having based on the multiplicity of cases from the provisions of the civil procedure legislation of Ukraine are analyzed the features of judicial errors. The author supports a point of view, that was told in the theory of civil process, that a judicial error in the civil process can be made both in the presence and in the absence of the judge's guilt.

It is reasoned, that a substitution of the circumstances of a civil case as a ground of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction can take place in the process of a civil case consideration and after its solution. For example, a recovery or a significant improvement of a mental condition of a person, that was declared as legally incapable, compels a court to recall its adjudgement of declared natural person's as legally incapable and restore his civil capacity.

Based on the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine, the author makes multiple examples, that confirm such grounds of self-control of a court of primary jurisdiction as an enforcement of his procedural rights by a participants in case (substitution of one interim remedy to another according to a motion of a participants in case) and nonfulfillment by a trial participant of his procedural obligations (executing of incomplete or ambiguous court expert's report, that gives an opportunity for a judge to award judgement about commissioning of a supplementary expert examination).