Terms of use of judicial acts for machine learning (analysis of some judicial decisions on the protection of property rights)

The subject of the article is some judicial acts on cases concerning protection of private property issued in Russia in recent years in the context of changes in the procedural legislation and legislation on the judicial system. The purpose of this article is to discover whether the current Russian judicial decisions may serve as input data for a machine learning algorithm in future. The main results, scope of application. The article presents an analysis of the changes in the Russian procedural law and in the regulation of the national judicial system in the recent years, which form new trends in judicial practice, according to the latest cases for the protection of private property in the courts. The author makes an analysis of the effectiveness of justice in providing recourse to private property violations in Russia. It is discovered whether the judicial protection has been substantially improved, following the promises of the Russian government. The article argues that these trends in judicial practice will negatively affect the automation of justice in the context of the nationwide digitalization of justice Such digitalization requires setting guidelines for the automated judicial decisions followed by the automated delivery of judicial documents. The methodology combines legal interpretation of judicial acts and Russian legislation comparative research, foresight and critical approach based on structured analysis, induction and deduction. Conclusions. There is a systemic deficiency in protecting private property in Russia, since neither the rules of civil and administrative proceedings, nor the constitutional control tools provide adequate protection on the matter. The recent relocation of the Constitutional Court of Russia from Moscow to St. Petersburg did not promote the judicial independence of the Court. On the contrary, the Constitutional Court, through formal excuses refrains from processing complaints on violation of private property rights and on the inefficiency of judicial procedures. The recent merger of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia and the Supreme Court of Russia has contributed to the uniformity of judicial practice. It violated the rights the owners of the shared premises in apartment buildings, but favored the beneficiaries of the management companies, which breach the owners' rights.
Judicial acts studied in this article prove their ineffectiveness in contributing to the quality machine learning for artificial intelligence required for the transition to automatic generation of blueprints and templates of court decisions. Analysis of judicial acts allows to conclude that they cannot serve now as a basis for machine learning of artificial intelligence. They cannot be systematized in databases even by the criterion of the law norms applied by the plaintiffs, since the courts evade the procedural obligation to explain why they reject the law norms that serve as the basis for a lawsuit or complaint, and apply completely different ones. These circumstances require the immediate response from the state authorities, including finding efficient ways to provide sustainable development of justice, i.e. ensuring the Rule of Law and access to courts, since otherwise the digitization of justice will lead to the automation of arbitrariness.

1. Alekseevskaya E. New Code of Civil Proceedings: Outlook. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2015, no №2, pp. 4-16. (In Russ.).

2. Alekseevskaya E. Compensation or Profanity? Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2015, no 4, pp. 34-44. (In Russ.).

3. Sakhnova T.V. Processualization of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Russian Federation as a Mirror of Procedural Evolution. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, no. 4, pp. 11-24. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-4-11-24. (In Russ.).

4. Terekhova L.A. Evidence in Courts of Cassation and Supervisory Instance. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, no. 1, pp. 157-169. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-1-157-169. (In Russ.).

5. Koroteev K. Are Russian Courts Capable of Creating Precedents? Overcoming Inconsistency in Case Law. Review of Central and East European Law, 2013, vol. 38, no. 3-4, p. 341-362. DOI: 10.1163/15730352-00000007.

6. Borisova E.A. New Cassation on Civil Cases: Issues of Theory, History, Practice. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2019, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 21-41. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-5-21-41. (In Russ.).

7. Borisova E.A. Novelization of Legislation in the Field of Verification of Judicial Acts in Civil and Administration Cases: Objectives and Means of Their Achievement. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2020, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 53-85. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2020-10-2-53-85. (In Russ.).

8. Borisova E.A. On the issue of reorganization of the judicial system of the Russian Federation. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and civil procedure, 2014, no. 3, pp. 12-18. (In Russ.).

9. Opalev R.O. The powers of the arbitration courts of the cassation instance to verify the validity of judicial acts. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and civil procedure, 2014, no.10, pp. 31-36. (In Russ.).

10. Klevtsov N.A. The effectiveness of civil justice: the problem of definition and assessment system in the context of the judiciary. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and civil procedure, 2015, no. 1, pp. 6-10. (In Russ.).

11. Minbaleev A.V. Regulation of the use of artificial intelligence in Russia. Informatsionnoe pravo = Informational law, 2020, no. 1, pp. 36-39. (In Russ.).

12. Egorkin S. The disappearance of the legal profession. Thoughts after taking a Harvard course in artificial intelligence. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2020/06/09/ischeznovenie_yuridicheskoj_professii_mysli_posle_prohozhdeniya_garvardskogo_kursa_po_iskusstvennomu (accessed on 15.07.2020). (In Russ.).

13. Groen L.A. The ‘lukos Affair'. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights. Review of Central and East European Law, 2013, vol. 38, no. 1, p. 77-108. DOI: 10.1163/092598812X13274154887349.

14. Ponomarenko V.A. Civil process as an information system (substantive-communicative aspect). Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess = Arbitrazh and civil procedure, 2014, no. 10, pp. 3-8. (In Russ.).

15. Varaksin M. Putin explained why the Supreme court will move to St. Petersburg. Available at: URL: https://pravo.ru/news/201083 (accessed on 15.07.2020). (In Russ.).

16. Kostyukov A.N. Law enforcement in modern Russia. Law Enforcement Review, 2017, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 159172. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).159-172.

17. Burdina, E.V., Petukhov N.A. Official load on judges: problems of definition, assessment, management. Moscow, RGUP Publ., 2017. 236 p. (In Russ.).

18. Alekseevskaya E.I. On the issue of justice of judicial acts in civil proceedings. Mirovoj sud'ya, 2014, no. 6, pp. 12-15. (In Russ.).

19. Alekseevskaya E.I. Right to know or failure of control system. Vestnik arbitrazhnoy praktiki, 2018, no. 3, pp. 3-9. (In Russ.).

20. Malyutin N.S. Trends in the modernization of constitutional review in the Russian Federation. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal'noe pravo = Constitutional and municipal law, 2020, no. 3, pp. 63-68. (In Russ.).

21. Campos J.E., Pradhan S. (eds.). The Many Faces of Corruption : Tracking Vulnerabilities at the Sector Level. Moscow, Alpina Publisher, 2010. 551 p. (In Russ.).