This section is devoted to the analysis of the procedural objection to the claim. It is recognized that the notion of «procedural objection» was generalized only by modern legal science on the basis of individual examples probably existed in Roman law. This means that Roman jurists at least did not know the notion of procedural objections, because in Roman sources of law is not found references to differences between the substantive and procedural objections. If the notion of procedural objections remained invisible to Roman legal scholars, speakers supposedly come to basic legal concepts with special attention and better understanding. This occurred through the development of the notion of «translatio» or «traslativa constitutio», and the concept of «procedural objection» allegedly received clear manifestation. Speakers understood by translatio or translativa constitutio special kind of protective pleadings. This form is used when the action though not completely unfounded, but served in a way that is unacceptable, and therefore needs to be changed (cum actio commutationis indigere videtur). It is, for example, that the lawsuit claimed improper plaintiff or affect the interests of improper defendant, that the requirements presented in violation of the rules of jurisdiction or in violation of the terms, that elected the wrong action or stated claim for improper punishment. 

Keywords: history of civil procedure, the procedural objections to the lawsuit, the Roman civil process.