The article investigates the issues of singling out and developing private principles in the civil procedure.

The purpose of the article is to elaborate on the correlation of private and public principles in the civil procedure. The search for an optimal balance between private and public principles in the civil procedure is the basis for creating a system of dispute settlement which would be adequate to public needs. From this perspective, it is important to provide a proper justification for the correct understanding of the civil procedure not only as a form of administration of justice, but also a tool to protect the rights and interests of legal entities and individuals and a certain consistency of their will to settle a civil dispute, which ultimately will make possible the exercise of their capabilities and the legitimacy of behavior.

The modern philosophy of private-law regulation in the civil procedure is primarily associated with the utmost implementation of the principles of dispositivity and equality of participants to a case which determines their activity and expands the ability to influence the dynamics of the civil procedure.

A new understanding of the role which private-law regulation has in the civil procedure involves a wider implementation of the principles of dispositivity, adversarialism, refusal from active participation of a court in the evidentiary process, an increased role of notaries, alternative ways of dispute resolution, improvement of the private-law jurisdiction system, and this, in the aggregate, contributes to the enhancement of efficiency of the national civil jurisdiction system.

The public-law elements have the following content in the civil procedure: ensuring that a legal case is considered by a court and the disputed relations under substantive law are settled by passing an individual law application act; ensuring that mandatory standards of fair trial, in particular, the right of access to court, the rule of law, the principles of legal certainty and proportionality are complied with and implemented.

The authors reach the conclusion that combination of public and private principles is one of the main trends in the development of modern civil procedure which characterizes it as a self-regulating system and determines the directions in which the mechanism of protection of the rights (interests) of citizens and legal entities in civil proceedings should be optimized. Private principles may be implemented in the civil procedure in the following forms: manifestation of dispositivity as a principle and method of the civil procedure; implementation of private principles through the expansion of the system of pre-trial, court (mediation), out-of-court and private alternative forms and methods for settlement of private-law disputes, resolution and settlement of legal conflicts and disputes; use of procedural agreement-based structures in civil proceedings; availability of different dispute resolution mechanisms having the jurisdiction which is delimited through the application of private principles; introduction of the institution of judicial control over the competence of non-state jurisdictional bodies.

List of legal documents

Legislation

1. Zivilprozessordnung in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung. Ein Service des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz in Zusammenarbeit mit der juris GmbH <http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/zpo/ZPO.pdf> (accessed: 18.11.2018) (in German).

2. Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [The Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 18 bereznia 2004 r. № 1618-IV <http://zakon. rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15#n7058> (accessed: 19.11.2018) (in Ukrainian).

Bibliography

Authored books

3. Bar C von and Clive E and Schulte-Nölke H and ather, Principles, Definitions and Model Rules of European Private Law. Draft Common Frame of Reference, Outline Edition (European law publishers 2009) (in English).

4. Paterson A and Bates T and Poustie M, The Legal System of Scotland (1999) (in English).

5. Wagner G, Prozeßverträge: Privatautonomie im Verfahrensrecht (Mohr Siebeck 1998) (in German).

6. Alekseev C, Fіlosofіja prava [Philosophy of Law] (Norma 1998) (in Russian).

7. Korshunov N, Konvergencija chastnogo i publichnogo prava: problemy teorii i praktiki [Convergence of Private and Public Law: Issues of Theory and Practice] (Norma: INFRA-M 2011) (in Russian).

8. Suhanov E, Grazhdanskoe pravo [Civil Law] (Volters Kluver 2006) (in Russian).

9. Zahvataev V, Grazhdanskij processual’nyj kodeks Francii [The Code of Civil Procedure of France] (Alerta 2018) (in Russian).

Edited books

10. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd, 2018 edition) (in English).

Journal articles

11. Mykhailov O, ‘Oznaky prymyrennia storin u spravakh administratyvnoi yurysdyktsii’ [‘Signs of Reconciliation of the Parties in Administrative Jurisdiction Cases’] (2007) 35 Aktualni problemy derzhavy i prava 300-4 (in Ukrainian).

Dissertation

12. Eliseev N, ‘Dogovornoe regulirovanie grazhdanskih i arbitrazhnyh processual’nyh otnoshenij’ [‘Agreement-Based Regulation of Civil and Arbitration Procedural Relations’] (dis d-ra jurid nauk, “Moskovskiy gosudarstvennyy institut mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy (universitet) Ministerstva inostrannykh del Rossiyskoy Federatsii” 2016) (in Russian).

13. Andrushko A, ‘Pryntsyp dyspozytyvnosti tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava Ukrainy’ [‘The Dispositivity Principle of Civil Procedural Law of Ukraine’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, Kyivskyi natsionalnyi un-t im Tarasa Shevchenka 2002) (in Ukrainian).