|
''Ex parte'' is a Latin legal term meaning "from (by or for) () party". An ''ex parte'' decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., South African, Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ''ex parte'' means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party. ==United States== In the United States, the availability of ''ex parte'' orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law. In practice this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of the request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ''ex parte'' proceeding, therefore, will necessarily be temporary and interim in nature, and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent. There are exceptions to this. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which grants the NSA permission to perform certain types of electronic surveillance, operates on a permanent ''ex parte'' basis.〔(Secret-court judges upset at portrayal of ‘collaboration’ with government ), ''Washington Post'', 30 June 2013. Retrieved 30 June 2013.〕 Parties other than the government are not normally permitted to argue in front of the court, though it is possible for the recipients of court orders to challenge them in other ways.〔Response of the Honorable Reggie B. Walton of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to Senator Patrick Leahy, July 29 2013. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/download/honorable-patrick-j-leahy〕 This is as directed by statute.〔See for example (50 U.S.C. 1805 )〕 Most US states also allow for initial hearings regarding civil protection orders to be done ex parte, however a second hearing is usually set a short time later to allow the alleged abuser to answer for the allegations.〔http://www.ohiolegalservices.org/public/legal_problem/domestic-violence/domestic-violence/civil-protection-order-remedies-and-procedures/qandact_view〕 The phrase has also traditionally been used in the captions of petitions for the writ of ''habeas corpus'', which were (and in some jurisdictions, still are) styled as "''Ex parte'' Doe", where Doe was the name of the petitioner who was alleged to be wrongfully held. As the Supreme Court's description of nineteenth century practice in ''Ex parte Milligan'' shows, however, such proceedings were not ''ex parte'' in any significant sense. The prisoner's ''ex parte'' application sought only an order requiring the person holding the prisoner to appear before the court to justify the prisoner's detention; no order requiring the freeing of a prisoner could be given until after the jailer was given the opportunity to contest the prisoner's claims at a hearing on the merits. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ex parte」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|