The article analyzes the problems of consideration and resolution of cases of giving permission for the opening of undelivered mail items. It is argued that the relevant cases are mistakenly considered by the courts in a special procedure. The reasons for the emergence of this category of cases are analyzed and measures are proposed to prevent its further existence in the judiciary practice.
The article is devoted to a new type of lawsuits - the obligation of the administrative defendant to refrain from committing certain actions, which appeared with the adoption of the new Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article explores how such issues are reflected in the latest courts’ practice. The author points out that these lawsuits can be considered as “strategic litigation”. Such type of lawsuits is a progressive method of judicial remedy, as they allow solving urban problems for many residents at once. For example, claims with requirements to refrain from construction; protection of the rights of persons with disabilities; challenging the refusal to hold public meetings; lawsuits against the demolition of commercial facilities; the requirement to refrain from committing actions to restrict access to public spaces; and a number of others.
The article describes the underexplored problems of enforcement of institute of indexation of amount judgements in a civil procedure in the national legal science. The problems of institute of indexation of amount judgements were considered on the base on an analysis of court practice. The article describes the problems of legal technique of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which concerned of institute of indexation of amount judgements, suggests the ways to improve it.
The subject of research is critical analysis of legal position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the need to go through the pre-claim procedure when filing a counterclaim. The reason for the analysis was the adoption on July 22, 2020 by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court of the Review of the practice of application by commercial courts of the provisions of procedural legislation on mandatory pre-trial claim. Point 17 of this document enshrined as a general rule the obligation of the defendant to file a pre-trial claim upon filing a counterclaim. The article shows the inexpediency and absence of any clear grounds for such an approach. Particular attention is paid to the fact that the nature of the pre-trial claim and the nature of the counterclaim are incompatible. Those exceptions were also criticized for which, according to the instructions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, a counter-claim procedure is not needed.
Thus, the article comes to a fundamental conclusion that there is no need to comply with the claim procedure when filing a counterclaim. Along with this, the study touches upon other issues raised in connection with the adoption of the Review on the complaint procedure: about judicial lawmaking and the quality of clarifications of the highest court instance.
The ecological legislation, establishing various ways of protection of the right of everyone for a healthy environment, limits citizens in procedural opportunities of their use. Author, based on our analysis of the content of the right to a healthy environment, based on the classical doctrine of subjective interest, proves the need to provide citizens the right to sue on the prevention of harm to the environment.
The article deals with the legal nature of such form of budget expenses as the enforcement of judgments, and identifi es its structural budget characteristics.
The Author proposes to amend the arbitration procedure law by introducing a case management concept, according to which the type of proceedings shall be determined by the court after revealing the respondent’s position.
The author substantiates that the legislator shall continue the trend to simplify the proceedings in arbitration courts in the part of resolving bankruptcy cases. It is affirmed, that creditors’ claims should be considered by the court only if objections are filed against such claims.
The paper is focused on the issue objective limits of prejudgment of civil procedure in rulings of court. The theme is underlined the importance of restriction of forms of judicial acts, which connect with institute of the prejudgment.The problem is pinpointed on the key features of criterions of expansion of prejudgment on certain rulings of court. It is argued that the consent decree should be excluded from the institute of prejudgment.
The author grounds the thesis that non-involvement of an insurance company that insured the liability of a bankruptcy administrator or non-notification of a self-regulated organization, whose member such administrator is, in a separate dispute on consideration of a complaint on the bankruptcy administrator’s actions doesn’t form an unconditional ground for cancelation of a court decision adopted on such a case.
This article contains analysis of practice of applying indirect evidences by arbitration courts. Notwithstanding that in the practice there are categories of cases, proof in which is exclusively or mainly possible on a basis of indirect evidences, the proof with help of indirect evidences encounters problems of persuasiveness and sufficiency of such evidences. The author comes to a conclusion, that in the situation when only indirect evidences are presented in cases usually proved on a basis of direct evidences, lower courts would, most likely, refuse to consider any facts proved.