The oral factor in adversarial civil proceedings


  • Oksana O. Hrabovska Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Olena S. Zakharova Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Nataliia O. Priazhenkova Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine


adversarial process, evidence, law, legal proceedings, legislation, principles


The relevance of the problem stated in this paper is conditioned by the fact that under any circumstances the parties are carriers of certain evidentiary information about facts and their explanations are evidence. The explanations of the parties provide the court with important material for proving and making a decision on the case. This is ensured by the oral nature of civil proceedings since civil cases are usually considered orally in courts. The purpose of the paper is to establish the degree of application of the oral factor in adversarial civil proceedings. An analytical method was used as one of the main ones, which made it possible to assess the oral factor in civil proceedings from the ancient times of its initial introduction to the present.


Download data is not yet available.


Astrup, B. S., Ravn, P., Lauritsen, J., & Thomsen, J. L. (2012). Nature, frequency and duration of genital lesions after consensual sexual intercourse—Implications for legal proceedings. Forensic science international, 219(1-3), 50-56.

Baranov, P. P., Mamychev, A. Y., Dremliuga, R. I., & Miroshnichenko, O. I. (2021). Legal consciousness and legal culture in the era of total digitalization: Theoretical-methodological and legal-technical problems. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S3), 899-910.

Been, J. V., Nurmatov, U. B., Cox, B., Nawrot, T. S., van Schayck, C. P., & Sheikh, A. (2014). Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 383(9928), 1549-1560.

Cala, M. J., Trigo, M. E., & Saavedra, F. J. (2016). Women's disengagement from legal proceedings for intimate partner violence: Sociodemographic and psychological variables. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(1), 35-42.

Engelman, I. E. (1912). Course of Russian civil Procedure.

Eshonkulov, J. (2021). Artistic interpretation of the epic creative image. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(3), 146-151.

Fleming, J., Hazard, G. C., & Leubsdorf, J. (2001). Civil procedure. New York: Foundation.

Fokina, M. A. (2000). Theory and practice of proof in adversarial civil proceedings. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg University of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation.

Glasser, C. (1993). Civil Procedure and the Lawyers-The Adversary System and the Decline of the Orality Principle. Mod. L. Rev., 56, 307.

Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003). From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. The lancet, 362(9391), 1225-1230.

Gulson, B., Korsch, M., Winchester, W., Devenish, M., Hobbs, T., Main, C., ... & Crisp, M. (2012). Successful application of lead isotopes in source apportionment, legal proceedings, remediation and monitoring. Environmental research, 112, 100-110.

Han, T., Liu, C., Yang, W., & Jiang, D. (2019). A novel adversarial learning framework in deep convolutional neural network for intelligent diagnosis of mechanical faults. Knowledge-based systems, 165, 474-487.

Homburger, A. (1970). Functions of orality in Austrian and American civil procedure. Buff. L. Rev., 20, 9.

Isaev, I. A. (2004). History of state and law of Russia. M.: Yurist.

Kessler, A. D. (2004). Our inquisitorial tradition: Equity procedure, due process, and the search for an alternative to the adversarial. Cornell L. Rev., 90, 1181.

Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83(2), B35-B42.

Kleinman, A. F. (1939). Stalin's Constitution and the principles of discretion and adversariality in civil procedure. Scientific Notes of the Moscow Institute of Law, 1, 89-92.

Kleymenov, A. Ya. (2012). Competitiveness in the civil proceedings of the United States of America. Moscow: Prospekt.

Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., & Espinosa, D. C. R. (2017). E-waste: An overview on generation, collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 32-42.

Lazer, S. (2021). The principle of orality: An analysis of the principles governing the prevalence of direct oral testimony in the English adversarial trial system and the impact of reforms to reduce its status. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield.

Leonhardt, N. O. (2019). Questions about the relationship between the principle of adversariality and the activity of the court in civil proceedings. Questions of Student Science, 5(33), 96-99.

Lezin, E. (2018). Features of ensuring the testimony of witnesses in civil proceedings in Ukraine. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 2, 24-34.

Manullang, S. O. (2021). Understanding the sociology of customary law in the reformation era: complexity and diversity of society in Indonesia. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S3), 16-26.

Millar, R. (2014). Civil procedure of the trial court in historical perspective. Clark: The Lawbook Exchange.

Mirzaeva, G. A. (2020). Methodical recommendations for interviewing the parties and other participants in the civil process. Tashkent: Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Morrison, J., Forrester-Jones, R., Bradshaw, J., & Murphy, G. (2019). Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(4), 366-398.

Nersesyants, V. S. (1986). The development of Russian law in the 15th first half of the 17th centuries. Moscow: Nauka.

Nestertsova-Sobakar, O. V. (2020). Statute of civil procedure of 1864: History of adoption, main provisions and its impact on the Ukrainian provinces. Scientific Bulletin of Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, 4(107), 95-100.

Nugraha, D. Y., Sudirman, M. I., Rudianto, R., Ferdiansyah, D., Ismail, I., Yani, A., Utami, C., Hajid, M. K., & Syawal, M. P. (2020). Increasing prosocial behavior through caring scout activities. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 6(5), 1-9.

Petrakova, S. A. (2019). Evolution of the adversarial principle (on the example of civil procedural law). Bulletin of the Volga University named after V.N. Tatishcheva, 1(3), 34-40.

Spencer, J. R. (2011). Evidence and cross-examination. In: M.E. Lamb, D.J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, C. Katz (Eds.), Children's testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (pp.386-401). New York: Wiley.

Suryasa, W. (2019). Historical Religion Dynamics: Phenomenon in Bali Island. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(6), 1679-1685.

Tikhonova, O. D. (2018). The principle of combination of oral and written language of civil proceedings. Civil Law: Law and Process, 2, 167-169.

Yakovlev, V. F., & Semigin, G. Yu. (2006). Economic (commercial) justice in Russia. Moscow: Mysl.

Yang, M., Wang, X., Lu, Y., Lv, J., Shen, Y., & Li, C. (2020). Plausibility-promoting generative adversarial network for abstractive text summarization with multi-task constraint. Information Sciences, 521, 46-61.

Zheng, W., Zheng, W., & Zong, Y. (2021). Multi-scale discrepancy adversarial network for crosscorpus speech emotion recognition. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 3(1), 65-75.



How to Cite

Hrabovska, O. O., Zakharova, O. S., & Priazhenkova, N. O. (2021). The oral factor in adversarial civil proceedings. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 832-844.



Research Articles