Writ as a simplified form of civil procedure. Writ of execution

In the mid-80s. in domestic law clerk appeared analog output. Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR of 20 February 1985 «On some changes in the order of recovery of maintenance for minor children»[13] in the judicial practice was introduced by the simplified production of the recovery of maintenance for minor children.

In the legal literature have been formulated following criteria to determine a simplified production of alimony:

– First, the national jurisdiction of a judge alone the next category of civil cases – alimony;

– Second, the child support collected in a simplified manner only for minor children, child support for parents, incapacitated spouse, adult children are collected in the manner of claim;

– Third, the national judge may consider an application for alimony only in the absence of dispute.

This means that if the debtor objects to the collection of alimony, or when he has recovered from the child support for other children, or manufactured holding other writs of execution, the statement of claim must be considered in order. In the absence of consent of the person obliged to pay alimony, the national judge no later than the date of receipt of the application shall notify him of the applications and invites him to a term not exceeding 10 days, if he and the applicant reside in the same town or area and in other cases – in a period not exceeding 20 days, – to indicate their consent to the collection of child support or object to a claim. Upon receiving the consent of the person obliged to pay child support or non-receipt of the due date of his objection to the national judge no later than the date of his ruling for alimony. The case is considered in the claim procedure if the debtor has objected to the recovery of maintenance[14].

The situation is completely changed with the reform of political and economic life in the country, the adoption of the 1993 Constitution and updates all legislation governing the protection of civil rights. November 30, 1995 passed a law «On Amendments and Additions to the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR», supplemented the Code Chapter 11-1 «Court order», which consisted of ten articles, which provided an opportunity to simplify and expedite the consideration of cases where the creditor allegedly indisputable that is, the debtor is unlikely to have substantive objections[15].

The new Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation entered into force February 1, 2003, preserved and refined in the light of the practice of debt collection mechanism is simplified, and included provisions for the injunction in Section II «Manufacturing in the court of first instance», Subpart I «Writ proceedings», the Head of 11 «The court order». Thus, the writ proceeding is now an independent kind of civil proceedings, along with the lawsuit and other industries.

1.3. Modern concept and characteristic of mandative process

For a variety of substantive requirements is quite obvious their formal incontestability, the applicant's claim is justified and documented, and there possible person cannot put up any objections on the merits. However, the need to give the executive power relations between the parties set in motion a mechanism for forced collection, because it’s obvious the debtor does not fulfill the obligation. In such cases, in order to simplify court proceedings debt collection be permitted by the order – a judicial act to protect the right, based on a documented set of legal facts. The design of the production clerk in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is based on the idea of presumed validity requirements imposed[16].

A simplified production process of law to issue a court order (writ proceedings) is entirely due to the nature of the substantive requirements to be protected. You can define it as a specific form of protection of the rights and interests of the creditor as a person, based on undisputed documents against the party failing to fulfill obligations. In other words, the production of documentary[17]

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

Гоббс Т. Левиафан, или материя, форма и власть государства церковного и гражданского Т.2. М.: Мысль. 1991. С.86.

2

Дождев Д.В. Римское частное право. М. 2002. С. 379.

3

Покровский И.А. История римского права. Минск. 2002. С. 148.

4

Новицкий И.Б. Римское частное право М. 1994. С. 61.

5

Черемин М.А. Приказное производство в российском гражданском процессе. – М.: ООО «Городец-издат». 2001. С. 14.

6

Черемин М.А. Приказное производство в российском гражданском процессе. – М.: ООО «Городец-издат». 2001. С. 15.

7

Грибанов Ю. Немецкая модель организации приказного производства // Право и экономика. 2006. № 10. С. 117.

8

Черемин М.А. Приказное производство в российском гражданском процессе. – М.: ООО «Городец-издат». 2001. С. 79.

9

Решетняк В.И., Черных И.И. Заочное производство и судебный приказ в гражданском процессе. – М.: Юридическое бюро «Городец», 1997. С. 49.

10

Черемин М.А. Приказное производство в российском гражданском процессе. – М.: ООО «Городец-издат». 2001. С. 29.

11

Масленникова Н.И. Судебный приказ // Российский юридический журнал. 1996. № 3. С. 39.

12

Решетняк В.И., Черных И.И. Заочное производство и судебный приказ в гражданском процессе. – М.: Юридическое бюро «Городец». 1997. С. 45.

13

Ведомости Верховного Совета РСФСР. 1985. № 9 С. 46.

14

Черемин М.А. Приказное производство в российском гражданском процессе. – М.: ООО «Городец-издат». 2001. С. 50.

15

Треушников М.К. Гражданский процесс. – М.: ОАО «Издательский Дом “Городец”». 2007. С. 414.

16

Кочаненко Е.П. Проблема выделения в отдельную категорию дел, разрешаемых в порядке упрощенного производства // Законодательство и экономика. 2008. № 4.

17

Треушников М.К. Гражданский процесс. – М.: ОАО «Издательский Дом “Городец”». 2007. С. 263.