Protecting Others (Its Idea and Limits) In Light of the Libyan Civil Procedure Code Comparative Analytical Study

Abstract

The idea of protection is based on the fact that the third party must be present in the existing dispute if it affects his interests, but if he was not aware of this dispute until the judgment was issued, or he was a party to it. But the judgment was issued based on the fraud of his representative or his complicity or gross negligence, and this judgment led to Infringement of his rights, he had to take the path of objection to amend or cancel the ruling.

The idea of the presence of others in the litigation or enabling him to object to the ruling issued in it, instead of ignoring its effects, was created by practical considerations, which is the unity of the common interests between the litigants and others or the unity and intertwining of legal positions, or the potential burdens that will be borne by the third party if a ruling is issued in such a litigation. Including the filing of an independent lawsuit and the consequent results such as contradiction of judgments.

However, this protection decided by the legislator for others is not absolute, but is restricted to certain limits that may not be exceeded. If the need to protect others is required by the principles of justice, then these same principles require that the protection of others not be at the expense of the interest of the litigants or the public interest. For example, the third party's goal of intervening in the litigation may be to deceive one or both of the opponents, or with the aim of complicating the procedures. Therefore, the legislator restricted the protection of others to the existence of an interest for others that requires protection.

Nevertheless, if the litigation requires maintaining the confidentiality of the dispute, it is not permissible for others to interfere in the litigation in consideration of its confidentiality, such as its connection to the capacity of the litigants or their civil status. Therefore, it is not permissible for anyone but them to interfere in the litigation.

Likewise, the protection of others may not be at the expense of the public interest, i.e. the protection of others should not be a means of prolonging the dispute or delaying its resolution, so the legislator restricted the third party to a specific period during which the means of protection must be exercised, just as the legislator did not allow others to interfere in the matter. Litigation whenever he wants, so the court is permitted to order the inclusion of others for compulsory action if it deems it to be beneficial.

These restrictions on the principle of protection of third parties, through which the legislator was keen to stabilize the rights and legal positions resulting from the provisions, as well as balance between the interests of the opponents and the interest of others.