Abstract
The paper refers to the issue of a court’s obligation to notify the parties to a hearing of its continuation. Implementation of a mechanism ensuring that parties to a trial are given a real opportunity to engage in a hearing proves that a given legal system respects the most important rules and proceedings securities. The obligation to notify the parties of the continuation of a hearing should be considered in relation to the proceedings securities of the parties and the principle of the concentration of the process, because these concepts reflect the directions of the major interests that clash in a trial, namely the individual interests (mainly of the parties) and the public interest. Those interests are frequently divergent. The issue of notifying the parties of the continuation of a hearing occurs when there is a break in the process. Pursuant to the existing laws, this happens in connection with the following: suspension of the proceedings, postponement of the hearing, break in the hearing, adjournment of the passing of the judgment and reopening of the hearing. Doubts arise especially in the event when a hearing is being adjourned and a new time and place where it will be continued is announced but not all the parties are present at the time of the announcement of a decision to discontinue the hearing. The paper attempts to analyse some important issues that arise in relation to the above.License
Copyright (c) 2018 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.