Senza categoria

Conflict between Procedural Law and Substantive Law

Unlike substantive civil law, substantive criminal law provides constitutional protection to the accused from the outset of the trial. However, instead of substantive civil law instead of both parties, only the defendant can appeal here. Substantive laws are the essential laws that govern a particular area and establish the rules and principles. The Indian Penal Code (ICC), which establishes different types of crimes and defines their respective penalties, is one of the examples of substantive law in India. During the 20th century, substantive laws changed and developed rapidly as Congress and state legislators unified and modernized many common law principles. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs commercial transactions, has been adopted in whole or in part by all U.S. states since its adoption in 1952. States should replace the common law and individual state laws as the sole authoritative source of substantive commercial law. Although each state has enacted its own procedural laws, usually referred to as the “Code of Criminal Procedure,” among the basic procedures followed in most jurisdictions are: For example, a state law states that a person has 30 days to file a response to a civil lawsuit. It is a procedural law that prescribes how a civil action is to be brought.

To give a concrete example: § 280 Abs. 1 BGB is the central regulation on damages for breach of an obligation. This provision requires the claimant to prove a breach of an obligation arising from the obligation, damage and causal link between the breach and the damage. If established, damages will be awarded, unless the other party can prove that it is not responsible for the breach of the obligation. In the new version of Paragraph 280 BGB in 2002, the legislator justified this allocation of the burden of proof as follows: If a breach of an obligation is proved, it is clear that the termination of the contractual relationship comes from the sphere of the other party. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that party to prove the reasons for the breach of the obligation. [2] In other words, Parliament has taken into account the fact that the applicant is often outside the respective scope of observation, so that it may be difficult for him – at least without documentation – to prove positively the liability of the other party. This difficulty of proof is thus countered by a (partial) transfer of the burden of proof to the other party.

If the creation of documents is ordered “in addition” in international arbitration proceedings, the claimant may benefit from a twofold unjustified advantage: shifting the burden of proof under German substantive law and the right to submit documents in accordance with international arbitration rules. Of course, the opposite situation can also occur: substantive law is based on the premise that there will be production of documents, but for some reason arbitration will be conducted without production of documents. In such a situation, it can be very difficult for an applicant to present their case. A procedural system provides the mechanism for the application of substantive law to actual disputes. Such a system establishes guidelines on what information the judge or jury receives, how that information should be presented, and according to standards of proof (e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt”, “by clear and convincing evidence”, “by a predominance of evidence”) the information is evaluated. An efficient procedural system ensures that similar cases are handled in the same way by the courts. Substantive law is an independent set of rules that decides the fate of a case. He can actually decide the fate of the negotiator, whether he wins or loses, and even the amounts of compensation, etc. Procedural laws, on the other hand, do not have an independent existence. Therefore, procedural laws only tell us how to conduct the legal process, while substantive laws have the power to offer a legal solution. On this basis, there are mainly two types of procedural rights: some facts that further illustrate the differences between substantive law and procedural law are as follows: on the basis of substantive criminal law, the court determines whether the defendant is guilty or not, and whether convicted, what should be the penalties for the crime.

Procedural law governs the conduct of judicial proceedings concerning the application of substantive law. Since the primary purpose of any judicial proceedings is to determine the truth on the basis of the best available evidence, the procedural laws of evidence govern the admissibility of evidence and the presentation and testimony of witnesses. For example, when judges confirm or annul lawyers` objections, they do so in accordance with procedural laws. Substantive law is a law that deals with the legal relationship between persons or the people and the State. Therefore, substantive law defines the rights and duties of the people, but procedural law establishes the rules by which they are applied. The differences between the two need to be examined in more detail for a better understanding. In Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons 210 ITR 886 (SC), it was stated that: “The distinction between substantive law and procedural provisions was made in Black`s Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition. P. 1203) as follows: Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, jurist and social reformer, first coined the terms “substantial laws” and “adjective laws” in his book “The Works of Jeremy Bentham”, while describing the procedure and course for the enforcement of laws in 1843.

However, he noted that, in the case-law, procedural law and substantive law should coexist, i.e. both could not exist without the help of the other. In addition to the IPC, the Domestic Violence Act 2005; the Child Protection and Protection Act 2000; The Sexual Harassment of Women in the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redress) Act 2013 is part of substantive criminal law in India. Judicial proceedings aim to uncover the real facts and establish guilt or innocence by making the best use of available evidence. Therefore, criminal procedure laws also regulate the presentation of evidence, the exercise of witnesses for the crime committed, and the documentation and determination of crimes by physical evidence. Procedural and substantive law may vary from state to state and sometimes from county to county, so people accused of crimes should contact a certified criminal lawyer operating in their jurisdiction. The possible tension between the substantial burden of proof and the production of documents plays a role in the 23rd C Willem currently underway. Vis Arbitrage Moot. [3] Rolf Trittmann also explains this topic in this year`s German Arbitration Journal. [4] It considers that an arbitral tribunal is required to take into account the interdependence between substantive and procedural law as part of its inherent powers to establish the facts in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules or when granting requests for the production of documents by a party. [5] Therefore, according to Trittmann, a court must take into account the rules on the burden of proof of the applicable substantive law in its examination of the relevance and relative importance of a requested document before submitting that document in accordance with the Article.

Categoria: Senza categoria
Articolo creato 731

Articoli correlati

Inizia a scrivere il termine ricerca qua sopra e premi invio per iniziare la ricerca. Premi ESC per annullare.

Torna in alto