The purpose of the study is to prove the need to lift restrictions in civil proceedings and proceedings in arbitration courts in terms of the limits of modification of the claim and to provide the applicant with the possibility of simultaneous modification of the subject and the basis of the claim while maintaining their previously stated legally protected interest. Certainly, this may be possible only and exclusively with the approval of the judge, as well as with the preservation of all procedural guarantees for the defendant. The methodological basis of the research is the general, general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition used by legal science in the object-subject sphere of cognition of the general theory of law. In addition, a number of synthetic, integrative methods of research are used, which are included in the methodology of interdisciplinary science, which is relevant for modern socio-humanitarian science. The results of the study are the justification that these limits in some cases can completely block the applicant’s access to the mechanisms of justice. The authors argue that this is unacceptable since it violates both the subjective right of the applicant to a defense, and one of the most important principles of justice is the principle of accessibility. The authors also considered the issue of the validity of the limits of the modification of the claim. The novelty of the work is in the results of the analysis of the practice and the alleged hypothetical situations in which the existence of limits for the modification of the claim does not allow the applicant to defend its rights and legitimate interests, as in the identified causes, conditions, and consequences of such phenomena.
The paper considers the factors significantly influencing the implementation of the principle of access to justice and develops the definition of these factors and their classification. The principle of access to justice is one of the essential procedural principles that guarantee the fulfillment of the goals and objectives set for justice, which necessitates a clear and comprehensive understanding of both the inner content of this principle and the phenomena closely related to it. The factors of access to justice as one of the scientific categories are practically not studied in the literature – many authors use this term (some of them offer their classification) but the factors are poorly researched, only as a necessary addition to the research subject-matter without giving them due attention for implementing this procedural principle. This study has practical significance: the consolidation of the principle of access to justice in the branch procedural codes (which, undoubtedly, should happen) should be supported with the detailed description of how this principle should be implemented in practice and what must be considered to assess the performance of the judicial system in the context of compliance with this principle. A simple statement that justice should be accessible is nothing more than a declarative norm (which already exists in the country’s fundamental law). For this purpose, it is necessary to create a normative description of facts and circumstances, the presence or absence of which should indicate whether justice is accessible at the moment.
This article examines the correlation between such concepts as the “subject of offense” and “complainant” within the framework of the general theory of law. The modern legal literature features sufficient research on this topic, however does not [au due attention to the object of illegal encroachment, although namely this question is most controversial and ambiguous in the theory of violation of law. Moreover, the great majority of theoreticians dealing with delinquency carry out their research within the framework of sectorial legal sciences, first and foremost, of the sciences of criminal and administrative law. The general theory of state and law should be fundamental, methodological science that dictates its view upon the concepts and ideas, which is further perceived by the sectoral sciences. The acquired results allow concluding that the subject of offense is the elements of matter under the legal protection, the negative impact of which inflicts harm to public relations; and the complainant is the element of legal relations that from its perspective cannot act as neither the object nor subject of legal relations. Through illegal encroachment on the complainant, the offender causes harm to the protected by law public relations as a whole.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.