ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Abstract

Introduction. Abuse of procedural rights is a special type of civil procedural violation where the exercise of procedural rights granted by law (going beyond their exercise) is committed with the intention of obstructing litigation. This model of behavior violates a number of principles of civil procedure: good faith, discretion, equality, competition, cooperation between the court and the parties to the process, fair trial and legal certainty.

The purpose of the study is to determine through the current civil procedural legislation, the practice of its application and scientific studies on problem of abuse of procedural rights, the limits of procedural rights realization taking into account the requirements of the fundamental principles of civil procedure. This will contribute to better understanding of the content of the concept of abuse of procedural rights and as a result, simplify the process of legal assessment of dishonest procedural behavior.

Materials and methods. The article used the general scientific dialectical method, analysis and synthesis methods, formal-logical and logical-legal methods when studying legislation, judicial practice and professional literature.

Research results. It was established that the regulatory principle of prohibition of abuse of procedural rights covers both the active component – conscientious, consistent and responsible behavior of participants in the judicial process, and the negative component – abstinence from dishonest behavior. It was proved that abuse of procedural rights damages the private interests of participants in the process and the public interests. The limitation of the court discretion in choosing adequate preclusive or compensatory sanctions for abuse of procedural rights was justified.

Prospects. Continuing the topic of the abuse of procedural rights in relation to the principle of good faith, a study of new forms of expression of dishonest behavior that arise with the use of the «Electronic Court» subsystem is proposed.