Exercise of powers by the presiding judge in the main court proceedings
The powers of the presiding judge in the main court proceedings are set out in article 314 of the CPC, according to which he: - directs the court session; - in the interests of justice takes all measures provided for by the CPC to ensure equality of rights of the parties; -creates the necessary conditions for a comprehensive and complete investigation of the circumstances of the case, while maintaining objectivity and impartiality ensures compliance with the court session schedule; -explains to all participants in the trial their rights and obligations and the procedure for their implementation. The objections of the persons participating in the court proceedings against the actions of the presiding judge are recorded in the minutes of the court session.Nevertheless, the disagreement of the persons participating in the consideration of the case with the orders or other actions of the presiding judge does not serve as a reason for disobeying them. In accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the law, it seems absolutely unacceptable the behavior of some lawyers who, participating in the main trial, left the courtroom without the permission of the presiding judge, did not comply with the requirements of the presiding judge to appear at the court session, did not appear at the trial.
At the same time, they justified their behavior by the position of the client or by disagreement with the actions of the chairman, who rejected their petition. Both cannot serve as grounds for disobeying the orders of the Chairman. After all, professional lawyers, such as lawyers, should understand (and most likely understand) that the law does not grant them, their clients, or any other participant in the process the right to direct the course of the trial. He entrusted the fulfillment of this mission to a professional judge. And no arguments can be considered legitimate against this. The departure of the presiding judge from the law, his failure to fulfill his duties during the trial of the case may in themselves serve as a reason to raise the issue of the annulment of the verdict passed by the court. The parties are well aware of this and should refrain from committing actions that may violate the order of the trial, the normal operation of the court, become a demonstration of public disrespect for the court, entailing the imposition of administrative penalties on the perpetrators, and if this involves insulting the participants in the process, for example, the chairman, then criminal liability. When considering cases involving jurors, the presiding judge must interrupt the speeches of the parties if, in the presence of the jury, they tried to address issues about the admissibility of evidence, about the defendant's criminal record, about recognizing him as a chronic alcoholic or drug addict, or about other circumstances that may prejudice the jurors. At the same time, the chairman should remind them that it is necessary to comply with the requirements set out in the second and third parts of Article 560, the fifth and sixth parts of Article 562 of the CPC. The chairman explains to the jury that they should not take these circumstances into account when reaching a verdict.Practice shows that there are more frequent cases when the parties do not respond to such remarks from the chairman and continue to violate the law.
Exercise of powers by the presiding judge in the main court proceedings
Paragraph 9 of the commented regulatory resolution states in this regard: "A judge, in case of repeated violations by the parties of the procedure for examining inadmissible evidence, as well as circumstances that are not subject to investigation in the presence of jurors, may bring them to administrative responsibility for showing contempt of court in accordance with Article 513 of the Administrative Code." This provision of the regulatory resolution contributes to to ensure that judges do not condone violators of the order of consideration of the case, Their illegal behavior was not ignored during the trial of the case and measures provided for by law were taken to ensure their liability. The judges presiding over the trial, first of all, and for their part, must comply with all the requirements of the law, bearing in mind that an unjustified refusal by the parties to examine evidence not recognized by the court as inadmissible, as well as those evidence that may be essential to the outcome of the case, is regarded as a restriction of their rights, that is, as a violation of the criminal code.-the procedural law, entailing the cancellation of the verdict in accordance with Article 575 of the CPC.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
