1) necessary joint action
必要共同诉讼
1.
The current necessary joint action system in the Civil Procedure Law of China is virtually based on the inherent necessary joint action system of Civil Law System,which requests the same object of action and individual members of the joint party prosecuting or defending at the same time.
我国现有的必要共同诉讼实质上是按大陆法系的固有必要共同诉讼理论设置的,它要求诉讼标的同一、共同诉讼人必须一同起诉或应诉,当事人方为适格。
2.
In China, civil procedure law can t classify the necessary jointer, but the procedure theorists think that are two kinds of necessary joint actions.
我国法律对必要共同诉讼未作进一步的分类 ,同时立法和理论都认为必要共同诉讼包括两种类型。
3.
In necessary joint action,according to traditional theory and law,the justification of parties in necessary joint action is all subjects of rights and obligation.
我国理论和立法认为 ,必要共同诉讼中的适格当事人为全体权利人或义务人 ,当有人未参加诉讼时 ,法官会基于“必须合并审理”的要求追加当事人 ,这种做法不仅违背了处分权原则 ,而且与既判力理论和程序价值论相违背。
2) party in necessary co-litigation
必要共同诉讼人
3) Similar necessary joint action
类似必要共同诉讼
4) joint litigation
共同诉讼
1.
The author has,from the situation of China medium and small shareholders rights damages,analyzed the main reasons for and the situation of medium and small shareholders rights damages in Company Law and Securities Law,and compared China direct action and derivative action,individual action,joint litigation and representative action.
从我国中小股东权益受损的现状,分析公司法和证券法上中小股东权益受损的主要缘由及状况;比较我国目前的直接诉讼和派生诉讼两种诉讼制度及单独诉讼、共同诉讼和代表人诉讼三种诉讼提起方式各自的适用案情和优劣。
2.
The article analyzes the reasons of the Supreme People s Court of China s non-adoption of American class action from legal,economical and political perspectives,and suggests that there are three limitations in the application of joint litigation to tort action of securities.
文章从法律、经济和政治三个角度剖析了最高人民法院排除美国式集团诉讼的原因,认为证券民事侵权诉讼适用共同诉讼有三大局限性。
5) joint action
共同诉讼
1.
It is controversial that the Civil Procedure Act of the PRC and the Judicial Interpretation define representative action in Article 54 of the Act as joint action.
我国《民事诉讼法》司法解释将该法第54条规定的代表人诉讼界定为共同诉讼是值得商榷的。
2.
However,class action has its unique institutional value and advantage than traditional joint action.
我国目前还不允许证券民事赔偿采取集团诉讼的形式,但是集团诉讼较传统共同诉讼有其特有的制度价值和优势。
3.
An important one of those reasons is that some cases, which should be or can be handled in joint action, were separated into single cases which results in repeated work of courts, expansion of litigants\' legal cost and inconsistent judgments.
造成这种局面的原因是多方面的,其中一些本该或者可以共同诉讼的案件被分别处理导致法院重复劳动、当事人诉讼成本扩大甚至结果矛盾是其重要原因之一。
6) co-litigation
共同诉讼
1.
To do so,it is essential that test litigation,co-litigation and alternative dispute resolutions be adopted to replace the current repre.
阶段性发展是代表人诉讼制度改革的必然过程,为此,在立法和实践中有必要以试验性诉讼、共同诉讼和诉讼外方式替代现行的代表人诉讼制度。
2.
This article argues that there are three limitations for co-litigation s application in civil tort case of securities, namely it s difficult for co-litigation to expand its scale; co-litigation has no way to solve the problem of free-rider, the system of representative of action is not wholly fit for such case.
这类案件采用共同诉讼方式也有局限性 ,如诉讼规模难以扩大、无法解决搭便车问题等 ,对这类案件应采集团诉讼方式。
补充资料：必要共同诉讼
必要共同诉讼：指当事人一方或者双方为两人以上,诉讼标的是共同的,法院必须合并审理并在裁判中对诉讼标的的合一确定的诉讼。
说明：补充资料仅用于学习参考，请勿用于其它任何用途。
参考词条