The successful commencement of civil proceedings depends largely on whether the plaintiff correctly determines the authority to which the statement of claim should be sent. And, therefore, it is worth knowing what the jurisdiction of civil cases is, what its types are distinguished and what is the significance of each.
The concept of jurisdiction of civil cases
The correct preparation of the statement of claim depends largely on whether the authority to which it will be sent has been correctly selected. In fact, the jurisdiction of civil cases is in charge of this issue.
The subject of the claim determines the legal relationship in connection with which the dispute arose. On its basis, jurisdiction is derived, i.e. what type of courts should be considered controversial (for example, arbitration or court of general jurisdiction). But at the same time, the subject of the claim also determines where the case will be considered. In this regard, the geographical position and status of the court are recorded.
In connection with the above, the jurisdiction of civil cases is a combination of legal provisions on the possibility of attributing a certain disputed relationship to the competence of a particular court.
It is worth noting that this category is ambiguous and is divided into types that cannot be ignored when drawing up a court appeal.
Generic jurisdiction in civil proceedings
Any controversial relationship is subject to a clear classification of legislation on the basis of complexity. And therefore, jurists have fixed such a concept as "tribal jurisdiction in the civil process."
The defining moment in this form of jurisdiction is the subject of the lawsuit, or the attitude regarding which the dispute arose. As you know, the judicial system can be represented by a special “staircase”, which includes first instance courts, appeals and cassations. Generic jurisdiction determines, based on the subject of the dispute, which structure will consider the lawsuit in the first instance. These provisions are regulated by 24 - 27 Articles Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
Territorial jurisdiction of civil cases
A controversial relationship arises between persons whose whereabouts do not necessarily coincide. And therefore, the practice and theory of the civil process distinguishes a special type of jurisdiction - territorial. In fact, it is a set of rules by which it is determined where (on what territory) one should file a claim for violated rights.
The territorial jurisdiction of civil cases, in turn, branches out into five types. The first and main is considered to be general jurisdiction, which determines that judicial claims can be sent to the court at the place of residence or location of the defendant. This provision is regulated by the provisions of Article 28 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
However, this rule is not mandatory. And, therefore, it is worth indicating the second subtype of jurisdiction - an alternative. Its regulation is enshrined in article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. Its essence is to provide the plaintiff with a choice of which court to appeal to.
In contrast to it, the legislator established the exclusive jurisdiction of civil cases (Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). In this case, the legislation strictly enshrines the list of cases falling under this type.
They also distinguish between the contractual (according to Article 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the parties to the agreement themselves determine the court) and jurisdiction in relation to cases (article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). The latter is based on the principle of the first case. It means that joining claims are considered in the court in which the first civil case was instituted.
It would seem that the proposed classifications carry a purely theoretical meaning. This is not true. The correct definition of territorial and tribal jurisdiction affects not only the speedy initiation and consideration of a case. The practical significance lies in the fact that an incorrectly defined jurisdiction may become a reason for challenging a court decision and, as a result, delaying the process of resolving a disputed relationship.