Bilateral Lawsuits (Actio Duplex): From Roman Civil Procedure to Modern Russian Procedural Realities

This paper is a study on the so-called bilateral claims (actio duplex) of the Roman civil procedure in the context of their interpretation by scientists of the second half of the 19th — early 20th century. The author has scrutinized the monograph of E. Eck devoted to bilateral lawsuits. The monographs provides detailed conclusions of the scientist, who believed that as such the model of bilateral lawsuits was not typical for either the Roman or the civil procedure of his time. The paper also analyzes the current state of affairs in the theory of civil procedure in relation to these claims, and substantiates the law enforcement needs for the formation of a special approach to such phenomena. In the first part of the paper, we are talking about how ideas about bilateral claims of the Roman civil procedure developed mainly in German science by the beginning of the 20th century. In the second part of the article, the author concentrates on Eck’s monograph on the so-called bilateral lawsuits and sets out his views based on the study of Roman primary sources and their subsequent analysis. Eck’s arguments are also described in detail. This is about the non-dual nature of claims for the division of common property. The third part of the article focuses on modern Swiss civil procedure and Russian procedural realities. As a result, the author formulates a number of signs of claims related to the so-called bilateral award, which allow them to be considered as a separate legal phenomenon.

1. Azarevich DI. The system of Roman law. St. Petersburg; 1887. Vol. I. (In Russ.).

2. Baron Yu. The system of Roman civil law. Book I. General Part. St. Petersburg: Sklad izdaniya v knizhnom magazine N.K. Martynova. 1909. (In Russ.).

3. Baron Yu. The system of Roman civil law. Book II. Ownership. Book III. Property rights. St. Petersburg; 1908. (In Russ.).

4. Bartoszek M. Roman law: (Concept, terms, definitions). Moscow: Yurid. lit. Publ.; 1989. (In Russ.).

5. Bayer H. Vorträge über den deutschen gemeinen ordentlichen Civilprocess: zunächst für seine Zuhörer herausgegeben. München; 1869. P. 369.

6. Bekker EI. Die Aktionen des römischen Privatrechts. Berlin; 1871.

7. Brandt AB, Egli M. Repetitorium Zivilprocessrecht. Orell Füssli verlag; 2019.

8. Dernburg G. Pandects. Vol. 1. General Part. Moscow: Universitetskaya tipografiya Publ.; 1906. (In Russ.).

9. Eck E. Die sogenannten doppelseitigen Klagen des Römischen und gemeinen Deutschen Rechts. Berlin; 1870.

10. Gian Sandro Genna Auflösung und Liquidation der Ehegattengesellschaft unter Berücksichtigung des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts der Schweiz sowie der künft Schweizerischen Zivilprozeccordnung. Stämpfli Verlag AG Bern; 2008.

11. Göppert Review: Reviewed Work: die sogenannten doppelseitigen Klagen des römischen und gemeinen deutschen Rechts by E. Eck. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft (KritV). 1872;14(4):532-561.

12. Hrubesch-Millauer S, Bosshardt M, Kocher MB. Rechtsbegehren im Erbrecht. Das Rechtsbegehren im Zivilverfahren: Theoretische Fragen, praktische Antworten. Stämpfli Verlag; 2016.

13. Karapetov AG, editor. Fulfillment and termination of obligations: Commentary to Articles 307–328 and 407–419 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation [Electronic edition. Revision 2.0]. Moscow: M-Logos Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

14. Karpova AA. Procedural features of the consideration of cases on the recognition of transactions as invalid and the application of the consequences of the invalidity of transactions in the civil procedure. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2024. (In Russ.).

15. Komashko MN. Restitution as a way to protect the right. Cand. Diss. (Law). Moscow; 2010. (In Russ.).

16. Lüchinger M, Brändli B. Actio duplex: Eine Untersuchung der doppelseitigen Klagemöglichkeiten zur Aufhebung von gemeinschaftlichem Eigentum, dargestellt am Beispiel der Teilungsklage bei Miteigentum gemäss Art. 651 Abs. 2 ZGB. Master-Arbeit, Universität St. Gallen; 2019.

17. Muter T. Zur Lehre von der römischen Actio, dem Heutigen Klagerecht, der Litiscontestation und der Singularsuccession in Obligationen eine Kritik des Windscheid’schen Buchs: «Die Actio des Römischen Civilrechts». Erlangen; 1857.

18. Pokrovskiy IA. The history of Roman law. St. Petersburg: Letniy Sad; 1998. (In Russ.).

19. Pukhta GF. A Course on the Roman Civil Law. Moscow: tipografiya «Sovr. Izv.» Publ.; 1874. (In Russ.).

20. Ronner P. Die doppelseitige Klage (actio duplex) im schweizerischen Zivilprozess. Master-Arbeit, Universität St. Gallen; 2019.

21. Salogubova EV. Roman civil litigation. Moscow: Dom Gorodets Publ.; 2018. (In Russ.).

22. Savigny FC von. The system of modern Roman law: In 8 volumes: Vol. III. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2013. (In Russ.).

23. Sklovskiy KI. Some problems of restitution. Vestnik VAS RF. 2002;8:108-122. (In Russ.).

24. Transactions, representation, limitation period: article-by-article commentary on Articles 153–208 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation [Electronic edition. Edition 1.0]. Karapetov AG, editor. Moscow: M-Logos Publ.; 2018. (In Russ.).

25. Vogel/Spühler: Grundriss des Zivilprozessrechts. [Electronic resource]. Accessed from: https://www. concordiabern.ch/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Zivilprozessrecht_Bolt.pdf (cited 2024 April 15).

26. Windscheid B. Die actio des römischen Civilrechts, vom Standpunkte des heutigen Rechts. Düsseldorf; 1856.

27. Windscheid B. Die Actio: Abwehr gegen Dr. Theodor Muther. Düsseldorf. 1857.

28. Windscheid B. Textbook on pandect law. Vol. I. General Part. St. Petersburg; 1874. (In Russ.).

29. Witte H. Das Interdictum uti possidetis als Grundlage des heutigen possesorium ordinarium. Leipzig; 1863.

30. Yudin AV. Assigning a legal obligation to «yourself», or to the question of clarifying the legal position of the plaintiff in civil proceedings. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess [Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure]. 2010;8:13-16. (In Russ.). Access from Reference legal system «ConsultantPlus».