Author
Abstract
Purpose: The main goal of the research is to determine the conclusions concerning the court's right to admit and examine evidence ex officio, without the litigants' initiative in this respect, with particular emphasis on the type of entities which are parties to the dispute and the consequences of taking or not taking such an initiative. Design/Methodology/Approach: The paper focuses on the analysis of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the scope of admissibility of the civil court's evidentiary initiative, with particular consideration of the prerequisites for its application, taking into account the subjective aspects. Court decisions were analysed in this respect as well in order to determine whether undertaking the initiative of taking evidence by the court constitutes the obligation or right of the court. The issue of the consequences of both the court's taking the evidence initiative and its failure was also raised in the context of the possibility to appeal the court's decision on this ground. Findings: The results of the research indicated the need for the Supreme Court to adopt a firm resolution having the force of a legal principle dispelling these doubts. Expecting the legislator to make the provisions more precise seems groundless, as it is impossible to cover all procedural situations with a general provision. Practical Implications: The results of the research indicated the need to develop a framework that could be used for evaluation of social campaigns impact on realization level of SDGs. Originality/Value: The conducted research has contributed to determining the admissibility of evidentiary initiative by civil courts in an adversarial trial, taking into account the professional character of the business activity conducted by the parties to the dispute.
Suggested Citation
Michal Wojdala, 2021.
"Court’s Evidentiary Initiative in Disputes Concerning Business to Business Trading in the Polish Civil Procedure,"
European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4 - Part ), pages 1038-1045.
Handle:
RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4-part2:p:1038-1045
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies
- K15 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Civil Law; Common Law
- K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiv:y:2021:i:4-part2:p:1038-1045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.