Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
The article contains some comments on the legal positions stated in the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 46 dated December 23, 2021, as well as on novelties in the regulation of arbitration web conferences. The Decree points the participants of procedural relations to the need for conscientious implementation of their rights and obligations in the conditions of an adversarial process. It also indicates their obligation to apply the consequences of abuse of procedural rights. The emphasis on the risky nature of procedural relations stimulates the application of liability measures and encourages participants to exercise their rights and obligations. The categories of "other economic activity" and "dispute on the right to real estate" underlie the competence of arbitration courts but remain unclear. The author criticizes the decisions of the Plenum to lower the requirements for qualifications of legal representatives and formalize their powers in technical actions. The fact that a contractual representative has to apply for admission at each court session contradicts the principle of procedural economy and the legal nature of the procedural legal relationship. The article also reviews the amendments to the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in terms of online court sessions.

adversarial litigation, professional litigation, jurisdiction of the commercial court, legal representation, webconference, online court session
Publication text (PDF): Read Download

1. Digital environment law, eds. Podshivalov T. P., Titova E. V., Gromova E. A. Moscow: Prospekt, 2022, 896. (In Russ.)

2. Zvyagina N. S. Procedural risk within the framework of the implementation of the legal certainty principle. Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2020, (6): 12-18. (In Russ.)

3. Zvyagina N. S. Timeliness of performance of procedural actions as a risk management mechanism in civil proceedings. Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2021, (4): 50-55. (In Russ)

4. Yudin A. V. "Evidence of behavior" in the civil and arbitration procedure (to the question of the evidentiary value of the facts the procedural conduct of persons involved in the case. Herald of Civil Procedure, 2016, (4): 12-32. (In Russ.)

5. Treushnikov M. K. Forensic evidence. 5th ed. Moscow: Gorodets, 2021, 304. (In Russ.)

6. Bülow O. The doctrine of procedural objections and procedural prerequisites. Moscow: Statut, 2019, 240. (In Russ.)

7. Reshetnikova I. V. Judicial proceedings: selected works. Moscow: Statut, 2019, 510. (In Russ.)

8. Kurochkin S. A. Efficiency of civil litigation. Moscow: Statut, 2020, 358. (In Russ.)

9. Relevant issues of civil and administrative proceedings, ed. Yarkov V. V. Moscow: Statut, 2021, 460. (In Russ.)

10. Afanasiev S. F., Baulin O. V., Lukyanova I. N., Opalev R. O., Mikhailov S. M., Raskatova N. N., Fokina M. A., Yudin A. V., Yusupov T. B. Evidence law: civil process, arbitration process, and administrative legal proceedings. 2nd ed. Moscow: Statut, 2019, 656. (In Russ.)

11. Zagidullin M. R. Responsibility for the abuse of procedural rights and its impact on civil circulation and the reduction of litigation. Liber Amicorum dedicated to Professor Tamara Abova. Modern Civil Law of Obligations and its Application in Civil Proceedings: Proc. Conf., Moscow, 30 Nov - 1 Dec 2017. Moscow: Prospekt, 2019, 327-332. (In Russ.)

12. Volodarskiy D. B., Kashkarova I. N. On the issue of the estoppel doctrine implementation: procedural aspects (part 2). Zakon, 2021, (8): 131-152. (In Russ.)

13. Potapenko E. G. Optimization of civil procedural legislation towards the balance of specialization and unification of procedural law. Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, 11(3): 70-108. (In Russ.)

14. Voronov A. F. The content of economic activity. Herald of Civil Procedure, 2017, 7(6): 13-33. (In Russ.)

15. Sultanov A. R. Thirst for justice: fight for judgment. Moscow: Statut, 2014, 304. (In Russ.)

16. Shaikheev T. I. The practice of consideration of civil cases related to disputes over rights to land in the Republic of Tatarstan. Agrarian and land law, 2014, (11): 25-29. (In Russ.)

17. Mozhilyan S. A. Use of rules of exclusive jurisdiction for disputes on levy of execution on mortgaged property. Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2020, (1): 12-16. (In Russ.)

18. Bocharnikova K. V. "Conflict issue" in the case of foreclosure on pledged real property. Jurist, 2017, (5): 16-20. (In Russ.)

19. Kalgina A. A., Ilyin B. V. The effectiveness of legal proceedings: exclusive jurisdiction. Vestnik Arbitrazhnoy Praktiki, 2018, (5): 47-57. (In Russ.)

20. Aleksandrova M. A., Gromov S. A., Krasnova T. S., Rasskazova N. Yu., Rudokvas A. D., Rybalov A. O., Tolstoy Yu. K. Opinion of the Civil Law Department of St. Petersburg State University on the draft amendments to the section on property rights of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiia Rossiyskoi Federatsii, 2020, (7): 62-111. (In Russ.)

21. Rybalov A. O. Lex commissoria in modern law. Vestnik VAS RF, 2013, (3): 6-13. (In Russ.)

22. Guziy D. A. Termination of the procedural position of third parties filing no independent claims regarding the dispute subject in civil proceedings: problems of the theory and practice. Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure, 2021, (10): 6-10. (In Russ.)

23. Yarkov V. V. Legal facts in the civil proceedure. Moscow-Berlin: Infotropik Media, 2012, 608. (In Russ.)

24. Branovitsky K. L., Rents I. G., Yarkov V. V. Judicial rule-making in the context of coronavirus pandemic: absurdity or necessity? Zakon, 2020, (5): 107-117. (In Russ.)

Login or Create
* Forgot password?