既判力与既判力的区别

Ion Caraman
{"title":"既判力与既判力的区别","authors":"Ion Caraman","doi":"10.52277/1857-2405.2021.3(58).01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The court’s decision is a final product of the judicial activity, aimed to ensure the protection of the persons contested rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. However, in order to establish an effective protection, it is important that the court decision is final has the authority of res judicata. In specialized literature, configured two concepts regarding res judicata. In this article, are highlighted the criteria that delimit this two concepts and the practical and theoretical necessity of such delimitation.","PeriodicalId":254422,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the National Institute of Justice","volume":"77 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The difference between the power of res judicata and the authority of res judicata\",\"authors\":\"Ion Caraman\",\"doi\":\"10.52277/1857-2405.2021.3(58).01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The court’s decision is a final product of the judicial activity, aimed to ensure the protection of the persons contested rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. However, in order to establish an effective protection, it is important that the court decision is final has the authority of res judicata. In specialized literature, configured two concepts regarding res judicata. In this article, are highlighted the criteria that delimit this two concepts and the practical and theoretical necessity of such delimitation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of the National Institute of Justice\",\"volume\":\"77 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of the National Institute of Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52277/1857-2405.2021.3(58).01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the National Institute of Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52277/1857-2405.2021.3(58).01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院的裁决是司法活动的最终产物,其目的是确保保护被争议者的权利、自由或合法利益。然而,为了建立有效的保护,重要的是法院的最终判决具有既判力的权威。在专业文献中,配置了关于既判力的两个概念。在本文中,强调了划分这两个概念的标准以及这种划分的实践和理论必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The difference between the power of res judicata and the authority of res judicata
The court’s decision is a final product of the judicial activity, aimed to ensure the protection of the persons contested rights, freedoms or legitimate interests. However, in order to establish an effective protection, it is important that the court decision is final has the authority of res judicata. In specialized literature, configured two concepts regarding res judicata. In this article, are highlighted the criteria that delimit this two concepts and the practical and theoretical necessity of such delimitation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Use of informational technologies in the education of drtainees: foreign experience and legal regulation Criminological specificity of war crimes, their difference from crimes against humanity and genocide Applicability of the ECHR case law within the judicial higher Court remedy examination Presumption of innocence in the doctrinal and regulatory sources of Western Europe (XIX-XX centuries) The presumption of lack of sexual consent in the case of a minor victim: a model of inspiration for the Moldovan legislator?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1