Requirements for court rulings in the light of guarantees of the right to a fair trial
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(1).73-81
Abstract
The subject of the study. The legislator does not establish a list of requirements that the rulings of the court of first instance must meet. The article analyzes the requirements for the rulings of the court of first instance in civil proceedings, in comparison with the requirements for court decisions based on domestic procedural legislation and scientific literature. The purpose of the article is to confirm that the main requirements for court rulings are legality, validity, motivation, and enforceability.
The research methodology includes the formal-logical method, analysis, synthesis, logicallegal method.
Main results. An analysis of domestic legislation and scientific literature led to the conclusion that, based on the requirements that court rulings must meet, the legislator has not correctly defined a list of definitions that must be substantiated, motivated and subject to appeal separately from the final judicial act. The category of protocol definitions should be rather exclusive. Such determinations must be made if it is not required to state the motives for the decision and if it does not affect the essence of the final judicial act.
Conclusions. Court rulings must meet the above requirements by analogy with court decisions. The issues raised in this article have not only theoretical, but also practical meaning in relation to civil procedural law in the Russian Federation. The practical problem is that at the moment the legislator has not correctly defined the list of definitions that must be substantiated, motivated and subject to appeal separately from the final judicial act. Court rulings in civil proceedings subject to appeal must meet the requirements of legality, validity, motivation, and enforceability. Contrary to this, in practice the opposite situation often occurs. The category of protocol definitions should be rather exclusive. Such determinations must be made if it is not required to state the motives for the decision and if it does not affect the essence of the final judicial act. Otherwise, this will lead to a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial and a restriction of a person's access to justice.
Keywords
court ruling,
court decision,
judicial act,
fair trial,
legality,
validity,
motivation,
enforceability
About the Authors
L. A. Terekhova
Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lidia A. Terekhova – Doctor of Law, Professor; Head, Department of Civil and Arbitration Procedure
ResearcherID: AAR-1012-2021;
AuthorID: 678373
55a, Mira pr., Omsk, 644077, Russia
A. V. Ryabusova
Dostoevsky Omsk State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasia V. Ryabusova – Postgraduate student, Department of Civil and Arbitration Procedure
AuthorID: 1102431
55a, Mira pr., Omsk, 644077, Russia
References
1. Rutledge P.B. Decisional Sequencing, Paper No. 10-004. University of Georgia School of Law, March 2010. 52 р. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1572709.
2. Treushnikov M.K. (ed.). Civil process, Textbook, 5th ed. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014. 464 p. (In Russ.).
3. Pakhomova L.A. Requirements imposed on the form and content of decisions of the court of first instance in civil proceedings, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Saratov, 2010. 22 p. (In Russ.).
4. Zagainova S.K. Judicial acts in civil and arbitration proceedings: theoretical and applied problems, Doct. Diss. Thesis. Yekaterinburg, 2008. 50 p. (In Russ.).
5. Sharipova A.R. Unified standards of judicial acts in criminal, arbitration, civil and administrative proceedings. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Legal science and practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2020, no. 2 (50), pp. 122–126. DOI: 10.36511/2078-5356-2020-2-122-126. (In Russ.).
6. Terehova L.A. The right to a fair trial and its provision in civil proceedings, in: Trezubov E.S. (ed.). Tendentsii razvitiya yuridicheskoi nauki na sovremennom etape, Proceedings of the V All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation, May 20–21, 2022, Moscow, RG-Press Publ., 2022, pp. 296–304. (In Russ.).
7. Sakhnova T.V. Course of civil procedure. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2014. 784 p. (In Russ.).
8. Mokhov A.A. (ed.). Civil process (civil procedural law) of Russia, Textbook. Moscow, Kontrakt Publ., 2017. 384 p. (In Russ.).
9. Baranov V.A. (ed.). Civil process, Textbook for academic baccalaureate. Moscow, Yurait Publ., 2015. Vol. 2. 306 p. (In Russ.).
10. Filchenko I.G. Procedural guarantees for the adoption of a reasoned judicial decision in civil proceedings, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Voronezh, 2010. 26 p. (In Russ.).
11. Timofeev Yu.A., Popov N.V. Evidence Falsification as a Ground for Court Decision Review on Newly Discovered Facts. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2018, no. 2, pp. 137–144. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-2-137-144. (In Russ.).
12. Kostrova N.M., Gadzhialieva N.S. Unreasonable as a basis for changing or canceling a judicial not ended in legal force. Yuridicheskii vestnik Dagestanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2020, no. 3, pp. 111–116. DOI: 10.21779/2224-0241-2020-35-3-111-116. (In Russ.).
13. Lesnitskaya L.F. Revision of the court decision in the cassation order. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1974. 189 p. (In Russ.).
14. Sherstyuk V.M. Direct connections of proceedings in the court of first instance and proceedings for the review of judicial acts in civil proceedings. Sovremennoe pravo, 2018, no. 2, pp. 55–60. (In Russ.).
15. Zaitsev S.V. Illegality and unreasonableness as grounds for cancellation of judicial acts that have entered into legal force. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess, 2014, no. 2, pp. 29–35. (In Russ.).
16. Saveleva T.A. Reasonableness of the arbitration court’s decision: new laws. Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii = Bulletin of the Saratov State Law Academy, 2020, no. 3 (134), pp. 165–170. DOI: 10.24411/2227-7315-2020-10082. (In Russ.).
17. Vikut M.A. The validity of the acts of socialist justice as the main condition for the fulfillment of tasks of civil procedure, in: Tsivilisticheskie problemy pravovogo statusa lichnosti v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve, Saratov, Saratov University Publ., 1982, pp. 122–124. (In Russ.).
18. Ponomarenko V.A. Reasonableness of the judgment in civil and arbitration proceedings, Cand. Diss. Thesis. Moscow, 2007. 24 p. (In Russ.).
19. Grigor’eva T.A. (ed.). Arbitration process, Textbook for universities. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2007. 400 p. (In Russ.).
20. Afanasiev S.F., Borisova V.F. The right to receive a reasoned judgment in the context of access to justice in civil cases. Vestnik Rossiiskogo fonda fundamentalnykh issledovanii. Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki = Bulletin of the Russian foundation for basic research. Humanities and social Sciences, 2015, no. 2 (79), pp. 154–164. (In Russ.).
21. Terekhova L.A. In defense of motivated court decisions, in: Voitovich L.V., Krainov V.I. (eds.). Problemy sudoproizvodstva v sude pervoi instantsii po grazhdanskim, arbitrazhnym i administrativnym delam, Collection of articles based on the proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference, October 12, 2018, St. Petersburg, NWB of the Russian State University of Justice, St. Petersburg, Petropolis Publ., 2019, pp. 385–388. (In Russ.).
22. Gribanov V.P. Limits of implementation and protection of civil rights. Moscow, Rossiiskoe pravo Publ., 1992. 204 p. (In Russ.).
23. Avdyukov M.G. Court decision. Moscow, Gosyurizdat Publ., 1959. 192 p. (In Russ.).
24. Yarkov V.V. (ed.). Arbitration process, Textbook. Moscow, Infotropik Media Publ., 2010. 880 p. (In Russ.).
25. Gurvich M.A. Selected works. Krasnodar, Sovetskaya Kuban’ Publ., 2006. 526 p. (In Russ.).
26. Zeider N.B. Judicial decision on a civil case. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1966. 190 p. (In Russ.).
27. Kleinman A.F. The latest trends in the Soviet science of civil procedural law. Moscow, Moscow University Publ., 1967. 119 p. (In Russ.).
28. Zavadskaya L.N. Implementation of judicial decisions: theoretical aspects. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1982. 141 p. (In Russ.).
29. Mantashyan A.O. Enforceability of court decisions in the writings of Marк A. Gurvich. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava = Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2016, no. 8, pp. 24–29. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2016.69.8.024-029. (In Russ.).
30. Timofeev Yu.A. (ed.). Revision of judicial acts in the civil process. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2018. 127 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Terekhova L.A., Ryabusova A.V. Requirements for court rulings in the light of guarantees of the right to a fair trial. Law Enforcement Review. 2024;8(1):73-81. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2024.8(1).73-81
Views:
374
Email this article 