Original scientific paper
Restrictions for Late Factual Allegations and Evidence and the Goal of Civil Procedure
Aleš Galič
; Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
The Yugoslav Civil Procedure Act did not contain efficient tools that could assure concentration of proceedings and a substantial preparation of the main hearing. There were no sanctions for default in filing of preparatory submissions, and judges were not empowered to impose binding time limits for written clarifications and supplementations of the parties' submissions. Already the first Slovenian Civil Procedure Act (1999) brought some improvements in this regard. Further steps were made by the CPA amendments in 2008. The legislator's intention was to put an emphasis on the preparatory stage of civil proceedings. For the first time, the judge was empowered to use his discretion in shaping the procedure and to adjust it to the characteristics of each individual case. The new amendments also promoted the idea that a party to civil litigation should contribute both to acceleration of the proceedings, as well as to achieving the goal of substantive justice on merits.
The relation between the goal of substantive justice and procedural sanctions cannot be determined based on ideologically burdened or even demagogical arguments. It is all about finding a right balance. The goal of preclusions is not to enable the court to avoid the determination of the merits of the case. The primary goal of such procedural sanctions is prevention. One can expect that parties comply with court orders and directions. If they do so, the preparation of trial and arguments of parties should be more comprehensive and of better quality. For achieving the goal of good quality of adjudication this can only be beneficial.
Keywords
civil procedure; new facts and evidence; preclusions; right to be heard; principle of proportionality
Hrčak ID:
109730
URI
Publication date:
15.7.2013.
Visits: 2.206 *