Extraordinary remedies in the civil procedure Abstract This thesis deals with extraordinary remedies in the civil law system. First, the thesis provides a definition of each remedy system and a brief description of the main principles on which the remedy systems are built. Then, in chapters three to five, the thesis discusses the individual extraordinary remedies, with particular attention paid to the extraordinary appeal due to its privileged position among the remedies. The extraordinary appeal is followed by a discussion of the action for nullity and then the action for retrial. The positive legislation in Act No 99/1963 Coll., the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, regulates the action for a declaration of annulment and the action for a retrial together in chapter four. Therefore, chapter five of this thesis deals in particular with the exceptions to the action for a retrial. Chapter six of this thesis aims to present the analogical institutes of extraordinary appeal in the German and Austrian legal systems, which is in particular the revision. In particular, the chapter discusses the conditions under which a given remedy is admissible and presents some specific institutes of the analogical legal systems. Chapter six concludes with a comparison of the frequency of pending appeal/review cases with the...

Action for retrial and for nullity Abstract This diploma thesis deals with action for retrial and for nullity. The aim is to provide a systematic interpretation about both of these institutes and characterize them in a system of extraordinary remedies. Although both of them are regulated in part four chapter two of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., Civil Procedure Code, as amended, their respective purposes are completely different. Action for retrial serves for a remedy of factual defects as a final decision could not stand due to a fundamental change of facts whereas action for nullity serves for a remedy of important procedural defects which affected court decision itself or proceeding preceding it. Both institutes can challenge a final decision and break the legal certainty brought by it. This diploma thesis contains four chapters. The first of them deals with remedial systems and remedies containing a brief characteristic of individual types of remedial systems and remedies. The second chapter addressing action for retrial and the third chapter dealing with action for nullity represent main parts of the thesis. Division into subchapters is almost identical for both of them and the subchapters cover the following topics: historical development of both institutes, conditions of and grounds for admissibility,...

Action for retrial and for nullity Abstract This diploma thesis presents two institutes of Czech civil procedural law - an action for retrial and an action for nullity. Both actions are considered extraordinary remedies under Czech law and both can challenge a final court decision. An action for retrial serves to rectify defects in factual findings; an action for nullity serves to rectify procedural defects. Specific court decisions of the district, regional, and high courts are demonstrated in the thesis and prove that despite the scarce employment, the position of the actions within the legal system is justified and deserved. Both actions can further be found, slightly modified, in the upcoming new Civil Procedure Code, which should in the future replace the current Civil Procedure Code. The thesis presents several partial aims and one main aim. The partial aims are to introduce to the reader the actions for retrial and for nullity, to analyse their frequency and the reasons for which the actions were granted, and to make a comparison of Czech and Swedish civil procedural law. Fulfilling the partial aims accomplishes the main goal of the thesis: to provide a critical analysis of the substantive intent of the Civil Procedure Code based on the acquired knowledge. The diploma thesis is divided into six...

La distinction doctrinale des nullités relative et absolue apparaît dans notre droit au XVIe siècle. Depuis, la doctrine enseigne que de sa mise en oeuvre, découle l’entier régime d’une cause de nullité. Le caractère opératoire de cette distinction est régulièrement interrogé, voire contesté. Cette circonstance, ajoutée à celle de sa probable consécration lors de la prochaine réforme du droit des obligations, incite à éprouver la pertinence de cette distinction. Pour assurer sa fonction d’instrument de connaissance du droit, la distinction des nullités relative et absolue doit, comme toute distinction binaire, posséder trois caractéristiques : premièrement un critère de distinction solide assurant son caractère opératoire, deuxièmement une différence de régime significative entre les deux éléments composant la distinction et conférant tout son intérêt à celle-ci, troisièmement une différence de nature entre les deux composantes, établie par le critère choisi, et justifiant la disparité de régime. Or, à l’analyse, la distinction des nullités relative et absolue ne possède ni critère de distinction sûr, ni différence de régime incontestée, ni dualité de nature. L’étude de la nature de la nullité nous conduira à retenir une nature unique : la nullité sera analysée comme une sanction de la légalité, qui doit être prononcée. Le plus souvent, elle le sera par le juge et revêtira alors un caractère judiciaire. Dès lors, à l’unique nature de sanction judiciaire de la légalité il est proposé d’attacher un seul régime, autrement dit, des règles communes à toutes les causes de nullité. La nature commandant le régime, ce dernier doit être élaboré en considération de la nature de la nullité proposée. Il conviendra néanmoins de prendre également en considération les dispositions légales spécifiques à certaines causes de nullité. / The scholarly distinction of relative and absolute nullities appeared in our law during the sixteenth century. Ever since, scholarly opinion has been that the entire regime of a cause of nullity depends on the implementation of this distinction. The operational nature of this distinction is regularly questioned, and even discussed. Yet, its probable establishment by the upcoming reform of the law of obligations urges a scrutiny of this distinction’s relevance. In order to fulfil its task of knowledge of the law, the distinction of relative and absolute nullities must, like every binary distinction, possess three characteristics: firstly, a solid criterion of distinction must enable it to be operational; secondly, the two parts of the distinction must correspond to two sets of significantly different rules, this difference being the heart of the distinction; and thirdly, a difference in the nature of the two parts of the distinction, established by the chosen criterion, and justifying the difference of regimes. However, after close analysis, the distinction of relative and absolute nullities possesses neither a reliable criterion of distinction, nor an uncontested difference in the regimes, nor a duality of nature. The study of the nullity’s nature will enable us to state that nullity has a uniform nature: nullity will be analysed as a sanction of the act’s legality that must be imposed. More often than not, it will be imposed by the judge and will have a judicial nature. Thus, the uniform nature of judicial sanction of the act’s legality must correspond to a single regime, in other words it must correspond to rules that are common to all causes of nullity. Since the nature conditions the regime, the latter must be established by taking into consideration the nature of the proposed nullity. Nevertheless, it is necessary to also take into consideration the legal provisions specific to certain causes of nullity.