- About
-
The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers
to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is
provided by the
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
Search results
Showing 1 to 8 of 8 (0.085 seconds)Spelling suggestions: "subject:"means off proof"" "subject:"means oof proof""
| 1 |
Įrodymų leistinumas ir sąsajumas / Admissibility and correlativity of evidenceŽąsytytė, Kristina 26 June 2013 (has links)
Magistro baigiamajame darbe analizuojami su įrodymų leistinumu ir sąsajumu civiliniame procese susiję aspektai. Įrodymų leistinumas ir sąsajumas aktualūs tuo, kad būtent nuo byloje surinktų įrodymų priklauso galutinis teismo sprendimas ir tai, ar pažeista asmens teisė ar interesas bus tinkamai ir operatyviai apginti. Siekiant tinkamai suprasti leistinumo ir sąsajumo kriterijų reikšmę, pirmoje darbo dalyje pateikiama ir aptariama įrodymų bei įrodinėjimo priemonių samprata.
Antroji darbo dalis skiriama įrodymų leistinumo ir sąsajumo kriterijų analizei. Leistinumo kriterijus svarbus tuo, kad apibūdina įrodymų procesinę formą, rinkimo bei tyrimo tvarką, o sąsajumo taisyklė padeda užtikrinti proceso ekonomiškumą bei koncentruotumą. Analizuojant leistinumo aspektą, aptariama ir 2011 10 01 įsigaliojusio nebaigtinio įrodinėjimo priemonių sąrašo reikšmė, nes įsigalioję pakeitimai praplėtė įrodinėjimo galimybes, tačiau paliko neaiškumą dėl konkrečiai neįvardintų įrodinėjimo priemonių leistinumo reikalavimų.
Trečioje darbo dalyje dėmesys skiriamas ne tik atskiromis įrodinėjimo priemonėmis gaunamų įrodymų leistinumui, bet ir konkrečių įrodinėjimo priemonių panaudojimui. Aptariami dažniausi būtinojo įrodinėjimo ir draudimo naudoti konkrečiai numatytas įrodinėjimo priemones atvejai.
Kaip atskira leistina įrodinėjimo priemonė aptariami elektroniniai įrodymai, kurių panaudojimas civiliniame procese auga. Analizuojant elektroninius įrodymus, pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas jų autentiškumo ir... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The Master’s thesis analyzes the aspects, related to admissibility and correlativity of evidence in civil procedure. The admissibility and correlativity of evidence are relevant, because a final judgment depends on the evidence collected in the case, and whether the person’s rights or interests will be properly and promptly defended. In order to properly understand the importance of factors of admissibility and correlativity of evidence, the first part of the Thesis presents and discusses the concept of evidence and means of proof.
The second part of the Thesis is focused on an analysis of the factors of admissibility and correlativity of evidence. An admissibility criterion is important because it describes the procedural form of evidence, collection and the investigative procedure, and the rule of correlativity helps to ensure economy and concentration of the process. In analyzing the admissibility aspect, the value of a non-finite list of means of proof is also discussed, which came into force on 2011 10 01. These changes which came into force have expanded the capabilities of proof, but have left uncertainty in respect of the requirements of the admissibility of innominate means of proof.
The third part focuses not only on the admissibility of evidence obtained by individual means of proof, but also the use of the particular means of proof. Here, the most common cases of necessary proof and prohibition of the use of specifically intended means of proof are discussed... [to full text]
|
| 2 |
Ata notarial como meio de prova / Notary public record as means of proofDeserti, Bruna Sitta [UNESP] 22 August 2016 (has links)
Submitted by BRUNA SITTA DESERTI null (brunadeserti@hotmail.com) on 2016-10-21T18:25:56Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
Dissertação Mestrado - BRUNA SITTA DESERTI (1).pdf: 936656 bytes, checksum: 9c5bb5f505974624027186d455411d48 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Juliano Benedito Ferreira (julianoferreira@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-10-27T17:10:31Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
deserti_bs_me_franca.pdf: 936656 bytes, checksum: 9c5bb5f505974624027186d455411d48 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-27T17:10:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
deserti_bs_me_franca.pdf: 936656 bytes, checksum: 9c5bb5f505974624027186d455411d48 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2016-08-22 / Este trabalho propõe uma análise sobre o uso da ata notarial como meio de prova no direito brasileiro. Partindo desse ponto, estuda a função notarial no Brasil, os princípios típicos e atípicos que lhes são aplicáveis, bem como as competências exclusivas do tabelião de notas previstas pelo art. 7º da Lei nº 8.935/94. Verifica também o conceito, objeto, forma, estrutura, requisitos e tipos de atas notariais frente à realidade do notariado brasileiro. Vencidos esses pontos, estuda as principais características do direito probatório brasileiro e os meios típicos de prova trazidos pela Lei nº 13.105 de 16 de março de 2015 (Novo Código de Processo Civil), dentre os quais está a ata notarial. Dessa forma, observa que antes da vigência do CPC/2015, que se deu em 18 de março de 2016, quando ainda vigorava a Lei nº 5.869 de 11 de janeiro de 1973 (CPC/1973), a ata notarial era utilizada como meio atípico de prova no direito processual civil com base no princípio da atipicidade da prova e na interpretação dos artigos 212 e 215, do Código Civil; 332 e 364, do CPC/1973; art. 19, II, da CF/88 e jurisprudência pátria. Após a vigência do CPC/2015, a ata notarial passou a ser prevista como meio típico de prova pelo artigo 384 do novo codex, o que permite que seja feita uma reflexão jurídica a respeito das alterações trazidas por esta adequação legislativa e os benefícios jurídicos e sociais capazes de serem alcançados com a nova roupagem conferida a este importante meio de prova.
|
| 3 |
Cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and UgandaSchleiffer Marais, Prisca Christina Leonie 11 December 2014 (has links)
The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state.
The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LL.D.
|
| 4 |
Расправно начело у српском парничном поступку / Raspravno načelo u srpskom parničnom postupku / Principle of Party Control of Facts and Means of Proof in Serbian Civil LitigationKnežević Marko 03 February 2015 (has links)
<p>Učenje o načelima postupka je jedno od karakteristika germanske procesualistike, pod čijim uticajem postaje i neodvojivi deo domaće doktrine. U teoriji se veoma rano se za oblast prikupljanja procesnog materijala formiraju dva antipodna načela – raspravno i istražno. Prvo podrazumeva da su samo stranke ovlašćene da unose procesni materijal, odnosno da su samo one odgovorne za to. Drugo stavlja u dužnost sudu pribavljanje procesnog materijala i prebacuje odgovornost sa stranaka na njega.</p><p>Od promena u srpskom parničnom postupku koje su usledile 2004. g. tvrdi se da je raspravno načelo afirmisano, a donošenjem Zakona o parničnom postupku iz 2011. g. i da je promenjen koncept parničenja u smislu uloge suda. On je sada pasivan, i gotovo neodgovoran na planu prikupljanja procesnog materijala. Predmet istraživanja u disertaciji je postojanje raspravnog načela u sadašnjem srpskom parničnom postupku.</p><p>Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da se ne može govoriti o raspravnom načelu kao važećem u srpskom parničnom postupku. Takav zaključak je, pre svega, uslovljen teoretskim određenjem pojma raspravnog načela i njegovog odnosa prema sudijskoj dužnosti pitanja. Raspravno načelo zaista podrazumeva da samo stranke unose procesni materijal u postupak i da u tom pogledu imaju slobodu, odnosno odgovornost. U tom smislu njegova nužna posledica su tri instituta: teret tvrdnje, priznanje tvrdnji koje vezuje sud i subjektivni teret dokazivanja. Međutim, ukoliko uz ova tri instituta postoji i sudijska dužnost pitanja, onda se odgovornost delom prebacuje i na sud, što dovodi do postojanja sasvim drugog načela – ublaženog raspravnog načela.</p><p>Na osnovu rečenog, promene koje su se desile napuštanjem načela materijalne istine, i to pre svega ukidanjem ovlašćenja suda da izvodi dokaze po službenoj dužnosti, nisu dovele do uspostave raspravnog načela. Sud i dalje ima dužnost da postavljanjem pitanja ukazuje strankama na deficite procesnog materijala; presuda na osnovu tereta tvrdnje, kao i presuđenje uprkos nepredlaganju dokaza može da usledi samo ako sud prethodno ispuni svoju dužnost. Sud je i u srpskom postupku saodgovorni subjekat postupka, i to ne proizilazi samo iz redakcije ZPP, već je takav smisao u skladu sa vrednovanjima slobode i odgovornosti stranaka, sa ciljem postupka, i na kraju sa osnovnim ljudskim procesnim pravima zagarantovanim Ustavom.</p><p>Određenje da raspravno načelo nije važeće, već da je to ublaženo raspravno, utiče na shvatanje niza instituta koji se tiču procesa formiranja činjeničnog stanja,<br />a spram toga se i svi drugi instituti koji se tiču procesa formiranja činjeničnog stanja moraju prosuđivati.</p><p>Veoma važan deo istraživanja, koji je i prethodio zauzimanju stavova, je uporednopravno istraživanje fokusirano na germanski pravni krug – Nemačku i Austriju. S obzirom da su srpsko procesno pravo i dogmatika gotovo pod isključivim germanskim uticajem, bilo je potrebno da se temeljno istraži pitanje raspravnog načela u ovim sistemima. Rezultati ovog dela su pokazali da je ideja o raspravnom načelu koje podrazumeva pasivan i neodgovoran sud davno prevladana; upravo obratno, moderan germanski model postupka podrazumeva saodgovornost suda i stranaka.</p> / <p>The doctrine of civil litigation principles is one of the key characteristics of the Germanic procedural theory. Under its influence the doctrine of the principles grew into the essential part of the Serbian theory as well. The theory has rather early developed two conflicting principles with regard to responsibility for collecting the facts and and evidence – the principle of party control of facts and means of proof (Verhandlungsmaxime) and principle of investigation by the court (Untersuchungsmaxime). First one entails that the parties only can provide facts and means of proof in litigation; court can not render its judgment upon facts or proof which are not introduced by the parties. Second one implies a duty of the court to ascertain and clarify the facts; by the same token, court has responsibility to do so.<br />It is the common opinion that principle of party control over facts and means of proof is effectuated in Serbian civil litigation since legislative changes in 2004. Moreover, after the introduction of the new Civil Procedure Act in 2011it is widely accepted that the paradigm of litigation is radically changed so the court is now rather passive and almost without any responsibility for gathering facts and means of proof. The subject matter of this doctoral thesis is the existence of principle of party control of facts and means of proof in current Serbian civil litigation.<br />The results of analysis show that the principle of party control of facts and means of proof does not exists in Serbian civil litigation. This conclusion is first of all determined by dogmatic examination of the principle’s notion. Indeed it signifies that only parties produce facts and means of proof, and in that sense that they have disposition and, accordingly, responsibility for that. By the same token, its necessary consequence are three institutes: burden of facts, binding effect of non disputed facts and burden of production of proof. However, if these three institutes exist with the court’s parallel duty to provide hints and feedback, then the responsibility is shifted partly to the court, which results in existence of a new principle – principle of soften party control of facts and means of proof.<br />Regarding to what is said earlier, the changes which resulted in abandoning the principle of seeking of material truth, basically abrogating the court’s obligation to take the proofs ex offo, did not lead to the creation of principle of party control of facts and means of proof. The court still has a duty to give hints and feebacks, i. e. to suggest to the parties that they clarify or supplement their pleadings; dismissing the claim or striking defense as insufficient due to the lack of factual pleadings or production of means of proof can take place only if the court previously fulfills its duty. The court is also in Serbian civil litigation jointly responsible procedural subject. That conclusion is not warranted only by interpretation of wording of the Civil Procedure Code’s provision, but rather and predominantly by evaluation of party autonomy and responsibility in Serbian civil procedure, purpose of a civil procedure, and last but not least, by basic procedural constitutional rights.<br />The conclusion that the principle of party control of facts and means of proof does not exist and that its place is taken by the principle of softened party control has fundamental consequences on set of institutes which refer to the process of determination of facts. In that sense all these institutes are analyzed by the virtue of existing principle of Serbian civil procedure.<br />Particularly important part of the thesis, which indeed precedes the main part, is a comparative study of the Germanic legal systems – Germany and Austria. Regarding the fact that Serbian procedural law and doctrine was and still is under almost entirely Germanic influence, it was necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of these systems. Results show that the idea of principle of party control of facts and means of proof, i. e. idea of passive and unliable court is abendoned. Directly opposite, modern Germanic procedural model is distinguished by joint responsibility of court and parties.</p>
|
| 5 |
Cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and UgandaSchleiffer Marais, Prisca Christina Leonie 11 December 2014 (has links)
The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state.
The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL.D.
|
| 6 |
Cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and UgandaSchleiffer Marais, Prisca Christina Leonie 30 July 2013 (has links)
The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state.
The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LL.D.
|
| 7 |
Cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and UgandaSchleiffer Marais, Prisca Christina Leonie 30 July 2013 (has links)
The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state.
The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL.D.
|
| 8 |
Las nuevas tecnologías en la administración de justicia. La validez y eficacia del documento electrónico en sede procesalJaume Bennasar, Andrés 09 October 2009 (has links)
La tesis se encarga de analizar, por un lado, la integración y el desarrollo de las nuevas tecnologías en la Administración de Justicia; y, por otro, los parámetros que constituyen la validez y eficacia del documento electrónico. La primera cuestión se centra en la configuración de los Sistemas de Información de la Oficina Judicial y del Ministerio Fiscal, así como de la informatización de los Registros Civiles, donde el art. 230 LOPJ es la pieza clave. Se estudian sus programas, aplicaciones, la videoconferencia, los ficheros judiciales y las redes de telecomunicaciones que poseen la cobertura de la firma electrónica reconocida, donde cobran gran relevancia los convenios de colaboración tecnológica. La digitalización de las vistas quizá sea una de las cuestiones con más trascendencia, teniendo en cuenta que el juicio es el acto que culmina el proceso. Aunque no todos los proyectos adoptados en el ámbito de la e.justicia se han desarrollado de forma integral, ni han llegado a la totalidad de los órganos judiciales. El objetivo final es lograr una Justicia más ágil y de calidad, a lo cual aspira el Plan Estratégico de Modernización de la Justicia 2009-2012 aprobado recientemente.En referencia a la segunda perspectiva, no cabe duda que el Ordenamiento jurídico y los tribunales, en el ámbito de la justicia material, otorgan plena validez y eficacia al documento electrónico. Nuestra línea de investigación se justifica porque cada vez son más los procesos que incorporan soportes electrónicos de todo tipo, ya sea al plantearse la acción o posteriormente como medio de prueba (art. 299.2 LEC). Entre otros temas examinamos el documento informático, la problemática que rodea al fax, los sistemas de videograbación y el contrato electrónico. / La tesi s'encarrega d'analitzar, per una part, la integració i el desenvolupament de les noves tecnologies dins l´Administració de Justícia; i, per l'altra, els paràmetres que constitueixen la validesa i l'eficàcia del document electrònic. La primera qüestió es centra en la configuració dels Sistemes d´Informació de l´Oficina Judicial i del Ministeri Fiscal, així com de la informatització dels Registres Civils, on l'art. 230 LOPJ es la peça clau. S'estudien els seus programes, aplicacions, la videoconferència, el fitxers judicials i les xarxes de telecomunicacions que tenen la cobertura de la firma electrònica reconeguda, on cobren gran rellevància els convenis de col·laboració tecnològica. La digitalització de les vistes tal vegada sigui una de les qüestions amb més transcendència, tenint amb compte que el judici es l'acte que culmina el procés. Però no tots el projectes adoptats en l'àmbit de la e.justicia s'han desenvolupat d'una manera integral ni han arribat a la totalitat dels òrgans judicials. L'objectiu final es assolir una Justícia més àgil i de qualitat, al que aspira el Pla Estratègic de Modernització de la Justícia 2009-2012 aprovat recentment. En referència a la segona perspectiva, no hi ha dubte que l´Ordenament jurídic i els tribunals, en l'àmbit de la justícia material, donen plena validesa i eficàcia al document electrònic. La nostra línia d'investigació es justifica perquè cada vegada son més el processos que incorporen suports electrònics de tot tipus, ja sigui quant es planteja l'acció o posteriorment como a medi de prova (art. 299.2 LEC). Entre altres temes examinem el document informàtic, la problemàtica que envolta al fax, els sistemes de videogravació i el contracte electrònic. / The thesis seeks to analyse, on the one hand, the integration and development of the new technologies in the Administration of Justice; and, on the other, the parameters which constitute the validity and efficiency of the electronic document.The first question centres on the configuration of the Information Systems of the Judicial Office and the Public Prosecutor, as well as the computerisation of the Civil Registers, where the art. 230 LOPJ it's the part key. Their programmes, applications, the Video Conferencing, the judicial registers and the telecommunication networks which are covered by the recognised electronic signatures, are studied, where the agreements on technological collaboration gain great relevance. The digitalisation of evidence might perhaps be one of the questions with most consequence, bearing in mind that the judgment is the act by which the process is culminated. Although not all the projects adopted within the compass of e.justice have developed completely nor have reached all the judicial organs. The final objective is to achieve an agile, quality Justice, to which the recently approved Strategic Plan for the Modernisation of Justice aspires.With reference to the second perspective, there is no doubt that the juridical Ordinance and the tribunals within the compass of material justice grant full validity and efficacy to the electronic document. Our line of investigation is justified because there are more and more processes which are sustained by electronic supports of all kinds, whether it be at the establishment of the action or later, as a proof of it (art. 299.2 LEC). Amongst other things, we examine the computerised document, the problems which surround the fax, the systems for video recording and the electronic contract.
|
Page generated in 0.0985 seconds