The prejudicial force of court decisions in cases involving the rights and interests of minors

Abstract

The subject. The subject of this research is the legal nature of the prejudicial effect of judicial decisions and the rationale for establishing permissible limits of its restriction in the resolution of family law disputes directly affecting the rights and protected interests of minors.
The aim of thе article is to characterize the general grounds for limiting the prejudicial force of court acts, as established in the legal practice of the Russian courts, and to subsequently develop a framework of criteria defining the admissible boundaries of such a departure. The ultimate objective is to ensure the effective and prioritized protection of the rights and best interests of minors in family litigation.
Methodology. The study is based on a combination of general scientific and specific legal methods. General scientific methods include deduction, analysis, and synthesis. The specific legal methodology comprises the formal-legal (dogmatic) method, the legal interpretation method (construing legal norms), and the comparative legal approach.
Main results. Departure from the prejudicial effect of a judicial decision in disputes concerning the rights of minors is not only admissible but also expedient within legally defined limits. The paper substantiates the necessity of striking a balance between two competing legal values: the stability and binding force of judicial acts (prejudice) and ensuring the effective judicial protection of the child's best interests.
Conclusions. The legal nature of prejudice may systematically conflict with the principle of priority and effective protection of the rights and interests of minors when resolving family disputes. It is necessary to develop special criteria for the admissibility of derogation from the prejudicial force of judicial decisions. These include: (1) the criterion of materiality is the presence of serious procedural and material violations during the previous decision, which cannot be eliminated by appealing a judicial act; (2) the criterion of dynamism is the emergence of new circumstances or a change in existing ones since the previous decision was made; (3) the criterion of a conflict of interest is motivated conclusions that adequate protection of the minor was not provided in the previous process, as a result of which the formal application of prejudice leads to a clear and significant violation of his rights and interests. These criteria should be applied by the court in aggregate, as part of the implementation of the principle of judicial discretion, aimed at establishing a fair balance between the stability of judicial acts and the protection of the highest constitutional value of childhood.