Peculiarities and procedure for interrogation of a witness by a notary public
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2025.9(1).132-141
Abstract
The subject. The author explores the current theoretical problems of Russian legislation governing the interrogation of a witness by a notary.
Methodology. In the course of the research, formal legal and systematic methods of interpretation of current legal norms were used.
Main results and conclusions. The conducted research and analysis of legal norms allow us to form a critical approach to the model of witness interrogation by a notary that exists in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The author proposes to amend the legislation in terms of granting the notary the right to interrogate a witness only in the absence of a dispute in court. The article provides a correlation between the provisions of the Fundamentals of Legislation on Notaries dated February 11, 1993, which establish the possibility for a notary to interrogate a witness in order to give such testimony evidentiary value in resolving civil disputes in court, and the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on securing evidence by the court. The testimony of a witness obtained from a notary in order to provide evidence is accepted by the courts as appropriate and admissible evidence in the case, even if it was obtained after the initiation of proceedings in court.
About the Author
Ju. V. Kaiser
Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Julia V. Kaiser – PhD in Law, Associate Professor; Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Arbitration Procedure
55a, Mira pr., Omsk, 644077
References
1. Treushnikov M.K. Judicial evidence, 4th ed. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 2005. 287 p. (In Russ.).
2. Zhilin G.A. (ed.). Commentary to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (article-by-article), 5th ed. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2010. 824 p. (In Russ.).
3. Nosyreva E.I., Filchenko D.G. Securing evidence in civil procedure: development of theory, legislative and practice. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 159–190. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-5-159-190. (In Russ.).
4. Kalinichenko T.G. Interrogation of a witness during the production of evidence by a notary. Notarius = Notary, 2008, no. 6, pp. 11–14 (In Russ.).
5. Begichev A.V. The main provisions of providing evidence notaries. Obrazovanie i pravo, 2014, no. 3–4 (55– 56), pp. 120–127. (In Russ.).
6. Larina G.R. Perpetuation of evidence in notarial practice. Notarial'nyi vestnik, 2024, no. 1, pp. 43–52. DOI: 10.53578/1819-6624_2024_1_43. (In Russ.).
7. Berezin D.A. Notarial procedure of providing evidence. Notarius = Notary, 2018, no. 5, pp. 5–7. (In Russ.).
8. Begichev A.V. Types of evidence support in civil and arbitration proceedings. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2013, no. 6, pp. 49–54. (In Russ.).
9. Yuzefovich V.B. Evidence and proof in the arbitration process: an analysis of law enforcement practice. Conclusions of a judicial lawyer. Moscow, Berlin, Infotropik Media Publ., 2012. 227 p. (In Russ.).
10. Agalarova M.A. The value of notarial activities in the administration of justice. Notarial'nyi vestnik, 2024, no. 1, pp. 15–22. DOI: 10.53578/1819-6624_2024_1_15. (In Russ.).
11. Feigel D.V. Evidence in the arbitration process. Nalogi = Taxes, 2010, no. 2, pp. 28–31. (In Russ.).
12. Maleshin D.Ya. Role of the notary in judicial reform. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo = Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 2020, vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 67–86. DOI: 10.21638/spbu14.2020.105. (In Russ.).
13. Krasheninnikov P.V. (ed.). Civil procedural law. General part, Textbook, in 2 volumes, 2nd ed. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2022. Vol. 1. 550 p. (In Russ.).
14. Molchanov V.V. Proving in court in the future unified Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh-civil procedure, 2015, no. 3, pp. 35–41. (In Russ.).
15. Yaroshenko T.V. Provision of evidence as a procedural and notarial act. Notarius = Notary, 2021, no. 5, pp. 8–10. (In Russ.).
16. Grigorevsky V.A. Origination of the institution of conservation of evidence in russian judicial proceedings. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh-civil procedure, 2022, no. 8, pp. 35–39. (In Russ.).
17. Proschalygin R.A. Perpetuation of evidence by a notary in judicial proceedings. Notarius = Notary, 2019, no. 3, pp. 34–37. (In Russ.).
18. Shemetov A.K. Notary’s interrogation of a witness as a means of securing the evidence. Notarius = Notary, 2019, no. 4, pp. 7–9. (In Russ.).
19. Frick O.V. Provide evidences as a one kind of notarial activities for notarization of undisputed facts. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya "Pravo" = Herald of Omsk university. Series "Law", 2012, no. 4 (33), pp. 109–114. (In Russ.).
20. Naumova E.A. Some evidence securing ideas for unified civil case proceedings rules. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh-civil procedure, 2019, no. 2, pp. 29–33. (In Russ.).
21. Ryzhov K.B. Novelties of legislation on the provision of evidence by a notary and the evidentiary value of notarial documents. Vestnik Arbitrazhnogo suda Moskovskogo okruga, 2015, no. 4, pp. 85–91. (In Russ.).
22. Kalinichenko T.G. Providing evidence by notaries. Notarial'nyi vestnik, 2007, no. 12, pp. 11–17. (In Russ.).
23. Leshchenko A.I., Leshchenko A.I. Actual issues of providing evidence by a notary. Zakon, 2008, no. 9, pp. 165–171. (In Russ.).
24. Borisova L.V. Judicial control over the performance of notarial acts does not exclude errors. Notarial'nyi vestnik, 2021, no. 12, pp. 42–48. DOI: 10.53578/1819-6624_2021_12_42. (In Russ.).
25. Egorova M.E. Interaction of the court and notariate as a law enforcement body in matters of the court activities supporting. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh-civil procedure, 2015, no. 10, pp. 3–6. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Kaiser J.V. Peculiarities and procedure for interrogation of a witness by a notary public. Law Enforcement Review. 2025;9(1):132-141. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2025.9(1).132-141
Views:
62
Email this article 