Open Access"Procedural Revolution". Review of Changes to Civil Procedure Codes
Author(s) -
Егор Трезубов,
Егор Трезубов
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
vestnik kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. seriâ: gumanitarnye i obŝestvennye nauki
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2541-9145
pISSN - 2542-1840
DOI - 10.21603/2542-1840-2019-3-2-187-198
Subject(s) - appeal , civil procedure , unification , procedural law , law , political science , arbitration , competence (human resources) , modernization theory , context (archaeology) , substantive law , law and economics , sociology , computer science , economics , management , paleontology , biology , programming language
This review examines some changes introduced by the Federal Law on January 28, 2018, No. 451-FZ, to the Civil Procedure Code, the Arbitration Procedure Code, and the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation. The media called the amendment pool “procedural revolution”. It touched many institutions. On the one hand, it promoted unification of the civil process and imposed legal certainty on many issues. On the other hand, it simplified some ordinary procedures. Some of the changes fix the rules formed in judicial practice; others are essentially transitional and imply the need for further refinement. The present research explores the following innovations: modernization of the institute of court competence in the context of the availability of judicial protection, simplification and unification of the procedure for reviewing a challenge to the court, expanding the scope of simplified procedures for reviewing requirements, fixing the rules of continuous appeal in civil and administrative proceedings, etc. The review introduces the upcoming changes to the reader and outlines the author's opinion on the procedural reform. Some changes are characterized as positive, and the author substantiates the need for reform. Meanwhile, some innovations are criticized as they will inevitably lead to restriction of the rights of participants in the procedural relations. The author believes that the innovations of the “procedural revolution” will not lead improve the court system.