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 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 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.
This paper is primarily focused about how to resolve a case under the article 146 of the Civil procedural code of the Russian Federation when the defendant seeks a relief after an interlocutory injunction has been successfully applied against him. The article explores how such problems are reflected in the latest courts’ practice, especially on the complex cases of mixed procedure. The author critically assesses the possibility of a situation when the defendant asks the plaintiff to be excessively punished for his requests and emphasizes the doctrine of "a chilling effect": the discouragement of the legitimate exercise of a legal right by the threat of a legal sanction.