Post by account_disabled on Jan 1, 2024 5:15:23 GMT -2
Adue to delay. According to art. of the new Civil Procedure Code in order to be admissible the evidence must be legal and conclusive reliable and relevant. The evidence is approved by the court after it has checked whether it is admissible and after putting it in the contradictory discussion of the parties. The court will issue a ruling admitting or rejecting the proposed evidence which will show the facts that will have to be proven the approved means of evidence as well as the obligations of the parties in relation to their administration. The court can go back on some approved evidence if after the.
Administration of other evidence it considers that the Country Email List administration of any of them is no longer necessary. However the court is obliged to put this circumstance in the discussion of the parties. . At the same time it is shown that the support of the author of the exception in the sense that the norms regarding the approval of evidence violate the constitutional provisions contained in art. regarding the restriction of certain rights and freedoms of citizens is unfounded considering that the criticized norms establish the conditions for the exercise of a procedural right the right to.
Propose evidence and do not constitute a restriction of its exercise but only an effective way to prevent its abusive exercise to the detriment of other holders of equally protected rights. . The Government also points to the relevant jurisprudence of the legislative solution from the Civil Procedure Code of respectively Decision no. of November and Decision no. of April . . The Peoples Advocate considers that the criticized legal provisions are constitutional. It shows that the criticized legal norm provides as a rule for the approval of evidence the meeting of the requirements provided for in art. of the Civil Procedure
Administration of other evidence it considers that the Country Email List administration of any of them is no longer necessary. However the court is obliged to put this circumstance in the discussion of the parties. . At the same time it is shown that the support of the author of the exception in the sense that the norms regarding the approval of evidence violate the constitutional provisions contained in art. regarding the restriction of certain rights and freedoms of citizens is unfounded considering that the criticized norms establish the conditions for the exercise of a procedural right the right to.
Propose evidence and do not constitute a restriction of its exercise but only an effective way to prevent its abusive exercise to the detriment of other holders of equally protected rights. . The Government also points to the relevant jurisprudence of the legislative solution from the Civil Procedure Code of respectively Decision no. of November and Decision no. of April . . The Peoples Advocate considers that the criticized legal provisions are constitutional. It shows that the criticized legal norm provides as a rule for the approval of evidence the meeting of the requirements provided for in art. of the Civil Procedure