The legislator gives the legal definition of the order in the provision of Art. 252 CPC according to which the court provides an order when it decides on issues that do not allow the dispute per se. The solution gives an answer to the application as it is the one the court pronounces on the merits, respectively the unfoundedness of the application. Subject of the order are issues outside the merits of the application, issues that are limited to those regarding the course for implementing the protection of the relevant law, the court’s ruling on the merits of the case. The appeal of orders is a protection remedy against unlawful orders that cannot be controlled on the occasion of appeal of decisions which are the orders in the process of the case. These are the pointed out in Art. 274, Par. 1, items 1 and 2 CPC orders which block the further development of production as well as the orders in cases explicitly stated in the law. The injunction is an act of the court with which the court shall rule on procedure matters but unlike the orders, when fundamentally in the production itself it is proceeded in a collegiate group, this matter is pronounced in one person. These are procedures that are decided solely by the court, occurring in the process of organizing or managing a meeting by the chairperson regarding the maintenance of order in the courtroom. On the other hand, these injunctions can have a preclusive character as well; they can obstruct the course of the case, enclose the path towards justice that determines the interest of checking their legality through appeal. In terms of this act of court – the injunction, there follows feasibility of the display in relation to the court order, since under the injunction of Art. 279 CPC, the provisions of Art. 274 - 278 CPC are also applied accordingly for the private complaints against the orders of the court.


Key words

injunctions, order, suspension, act, trial, appeal



Иванов, А. Сущность судебного определения.

Сборник Международная научнопрактическая конфренции аспирантов и
молодых ученых „ Правовое образование Гражданское общество Справедливое гасударство”, КГУ, гр. Кемерово, РФ, 2012 г., под печат.
Попова, В. Някои въпроси по обжалването на определенията. – Сиела – Норми, 2010 г.

Приема се в практиката, че това определение не прегражда пътя на развитие на делото като цяло, но прегражда пътя на защита на желаещото да встъпи като подпомагаща страна лице, респ. пътя за защита срещу лицето, чието
привличане като подпомагаща страна се иска. Вж. така опр. No 397 от 18.05.2010 г. на ВКС по ч. т. д. No 306/2010 г., I т. о., ТК.

Сталев, Ж., Мингова, А., Стамболиев, О., Попова, В. и Иванова, Р. Българско
гражданско процесуално право. Девето преработено и допълнено издание. Първо по действащия ГПК. С.: Сиела, 2012, с. 634.

Чернев, С. Допустимост на касационното обжалване по новия Граждански процесуален кодекс на Република България. – Във: Сборник в памет на проф. д-р Живко Сталев. С.: Сиела, 2009, 21-71.

Иванова, Р., Пунев, Б. и Чернев, С. Коментар на новия Граждански процесуален кодекс. С.: ИК „ Труд и право”, 2008, с. 448.

Корнезов, Л. Гражданско съдопроизводство. Том първи. Исков процес. С.:
Софи -р, 2009, с. 818; така и вж. Попова, В. Касационното обжалване и новия ГПК. – Сиела – Норми, 2010 г.


Full Text: PDF (Bulgarian)

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.