Nature party

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In jurisprudence and in the administration of justice, a party in nature is a party in judicial proceedings that is not legally formed and also not represented by a lawyer or otherwise.

A plaintiff or a defendant can pursue his own lawsuit as long as there is no compulsory lawyer in a particular situation in the proceedings .

In favor of the legal layperson as a party to the proceedings, the general opinion is that stricter notification obligations of the court apply in legal discussions , while this does not apply to the party represented by a lawyer; the latter must be responsible for the fault of their legal representative . The improvement of laypeople is required for constitutional reasons in order to establish equality of arms and opportunities in proceedings , Article 103.1 of the Basic Law. The nature party's lack of knowledge of the law does no harm, because the court is only bound by their factual presentation, not by their - possibly incorrect - legal views, which is stated in the Roman law principles da mihi factum, dabo tibi ius , iura novit curia and in § 138 , § 139  ZPO is expressed (obligation of the parties to declare the facts relevant to the decision and the corresponding notification obligations of the court). Dealing with the party of nature therefore presents itself as an act of fairness and thus as a requirement of justice .

The gap that opens up between professional lawyers and legal laypeople is a result of juridification. This is particularly evident in court proceedings. From a legal sociological point of view, lawyers generally have the function of an interface that mediates between judges and citizens. The relationship between lawyers and legal laypersons is largely shaped by an unevenly distributed knowledge . The change in the judges' dealings with the natural parties is more dependent on general cultural change than on professional training.

literature

  • Thorsten Berndt: Judge pictures. Dimensions of judicial self-typing . 1st edition. VS, publisher. for social sciences, Wiesbaden 2010, ISBN 978-3-531-17503-4 , p. 217-227 .
  • Thorsten Berndt: From the competent handling of incomprehension in court: to the professional special knowledge of judges . In: Karl-Siegbert Rehberg (Ed.): Social Inequality, Cultural Differences: Negotiations of the 32nd Congress of the German Society for Sociology in Munich. Teilbd. 1 and 2 . Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2006, ISBN 978-3-593-37887-9 , pp. 3174-3182 ( nbn-resolving.org [accessed March 11, 2019]).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ For example through a social association or through trade union legal protection.
  2. ^ Rüdiger Zuck: Ability to postulate and compulsory lawyer: The role of the lawyer in a changing world . In: JuristenZeitung . tape 48 , no. 10 , 1993, ISSN  0022-6882 , pp. 500–508, 505 with further references , JSTOR : 20820975 .
  3. ↑ OLG Hamm, decision of December 6, 2013 - 9 W 60/13 , openJur 2013, 45991, Rn. 11.
  4. ↑ a b Thorsten Berndt: From the competent handling of expert knowledge in court: to the professional special knowledge of judges . In: Karl-Siegbert Rehberg (Ed.): Social Inequality, Cultural Differences: Negotiations of the 32nd Congress of the German Society for Sociology in Munich. Teilbd. 1 and 2 . Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2006, ISBN 978-3-593-37887-9 , pp. 3174-3182, 3175, 3181 ( nbn-resolving.org [accessed March 11, 2019]).