General Alternative and Contractual Jurisdiction in Moldova and Romania Based on the Alternative Procedural Right of Parties

Author:

Prisac AlexandruORCID

Abstract

Background: The legal institution that delimits the powers of judicial bodies to resolve legal cases is the general jurisdiction. This interbranch institution which incorporates legal norms of several branches of procedural law that interact with one another . Within this jurisdiction, different types of competences exist, including alternative general competence and contractual general competence. This article aims to highlight the particularities of these types of general competence, starting from the alternative procedural right regulated in the legislation of both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. Methods: The results were obtained through applying various knowledge methods: synthesis, analysis, and comparison. The latter was particularly instrumental in highlighting the regulatory framework of alternative and contractual general jurisdiction in both the Republic of Moldova and Romania. This involved exploring the arguments that these jurisdiction types in the alternative procedural right, identifying the limits and conditions governing their exercise, and examining specifics of their regulation in each country. Additionally, the principles governing alternative and contractual general jurisdiction were also highlighted. Results and Conclusions: This article successfully distinguished between alternative general jurisdiction and contractual general jurisdiction, recognising them as two distinct types of general jurisdiction. This inability to recognise their difference has led to confusion and incorrect application in the judicial practice of the rules regarding the general competence of judicial bodies. The particularities of exercising the right to choose the jurisdictional body were highlighted both under the regulations regarding the alternative general competence and the contractual one. Finally, the study concludes with recommendations to ensure the correct application of these types of general competence in practice. It has been argued that the right to choose the jurisdictional body by virtue of general alternative and contractual jurisdiction constitutes a procedural right, not a substantive one . Proposals have also been proposed to amend the l, improving the alternative general jurisdiction and contract regulations.

Publisher

East-European Law Research Center

Subject

Law

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3