?
Основание и предназначение освобождения от доказывания обстоятельств, ранее установленных судебным актом
There is hardly a more confusing issue in court practice than issue preclusion. The difficulty of understanding the current rules on issue preclusion leads to the casuistry of their application, which leads to the accumulation of contradictions. Two main issues related to issue preclusion are still extremely controversial: firstly, what exactly is being prejudged — facts or facts with a legal assessment given to them by the court, and secondly, whether issue preclusion applies to persons who did not participate in the factual establishment. The difficulty of solving these problems causes a desire to completely abandon issue preclusion. Meanwhile, the correct application of the rules on issue preclusion helps to achieve significant savings in the efforts and resources of the judicial system and the participants in the process in carrying out evidence, reduce the number of court proceedings, and prevent the appearance of conflicting judicial acts. To solve all the problems related to issue preclusion, it is necessary to propose a unified concept of exemption from proving the circumstances previously established by a judicial act. This will make it possible, on the basis of the same principles that make up the essence of this procedural instrument, to consistently answer all questions arising in connection with issue preclusion. The paper offers a critical understanding of four views on issue preclusion — from the point of view of the principle of competition, procedural estoppel, the prohibition to initiate a new trial on a dispute resolved by the court, and the binding nature of judicial acts. This discussion provides arguments for a satisfactory solution to the problems of identifying the content of issue preclusion and its expanded subjective limits.