Overcoming Legal Uncertainty for Justice Effectiveness Improvement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/43zxqb41Keywords:
civil proceedings, efficiency of justice, legal certainty, , justice accessibility, jurisdictionAbstract
The article examines the impact of legal certainty of civil procedural legislation and the practice of its application on the appropriate conditions creation for the justice effective implementation. It is emphasized that the lack of legal certainty, namely, its opposite - legal ‘uncertainty’, creates both legislative conflicts, and, even more significant, law enforcement problems that significantly reduce the availability of justice for persons in need of judicial protection. Courts heterogeneously use established procedural rules, applying a formalistic approach, jeopardizing the issuance of a lawful and justified judicial act. In order to overcome the state of legal uncertainty and, as a result, increase the efficiency of legal proceedings, it is necessary to use such legal techniques that do not entail the appearance of casuistic legal norms. The model of the most general norms can be applied to any emerging procedural situation, taking into account the systemic and targeted methods of interpretation. Such an approach of building a legislation system, coupled with the subsequent application of norms based on internal conviction and judicial discretion that will ensure the unity of judicial practice.
Downloads
References
[1] S. V. Radaev, “Legal technique as a condition for increasing the effectiveness of justice,” PhD thesis, Saratov, 2011.
[2] N. A. Chechina, The main directions of Soviet civil procedural law development. Leningrad, 1987.
[3] T. Kotarbinsky, A treatise on good work. Moscow: Progress, 1972.
[4] A. M. Larin, “Improving the effectiveness of the investigation,” Soviet State and Law, vol. 3, pp. 106 – 113, 1973.
[5] Government of the Russian Federation, “The concept of the Federal Target Program ‘Development of the Russian judicial system for 2013 - 2020’: approved by the Government of the Russian Federation, September 20, 2012 No. 1735.” Garant, 2012 [Online]. Available: http://base.garant.ru/70230940/
[6] V. M. Lebedeva and T. Y. Khabrieva, Eds., Justice in the modern world. Moscow: Norma, 2012.
[7] A. A. Melnikov, The theory of civil procedural law as a science. Moscow: Science, 1981.
[8] V. A. Terekhin and V. V. Zakharov, “Some aspects of the optimization of civil proceedings,” Arbitration and Civil Process, vol. 5, pp. 3–7, 2014.
[9] I. V. Rekhtina, “The multidimensional nature of the ‘legal certainty’ category in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,” Russian Judge, vol. 7, pp. 51–55, 2019.
[10] M. K. Treushnikov, Judicial evidence. Moscow: Gorodets, 2017.
[11] M. A. Bolovnev, Combating the abuse of civil procedural rights. Barnaul: Altai State University, 2018.
[12] A. P. Sergeev, Ed., “Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the USSR, December 1, 1983 No, 10 ‘On the application of procedural legislation when considering civil cases in a court of first instance,’” in Collection of Plenums decisions of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation for Civil Cases, Moscow: Prospect, 2000.
[13] Zheleznodorozhny District Court, “The case of # M-1880/2019 Decision of Zheleznodorozhny District Court, the city of Barnaul,” in Archive of Zheleznodorozhny District Court, Barnaul, Barnaul, 2019.
[14] Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, “Some issues of the legislation application as compensation for moral harm: Plenum Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, December 20, 1994 No. 10 (as amended on February 6, 2007).” Garant, 1994.
[15] “The dispute on non-pecuniary damage compensation (based on the judicial practice of the Moscow City Court).” Electronic Journal’ Assistant Attorney, 2019.
[16] M. S. Patsatsiya, Procedural activities of the verification instances of the arbitration court. Moscow, 2008.
[17] M. S. Shakaryan, “Problems of accessibility and effectiveness of justice in courts of general jurisdiction,” in Problems of accessibility and effectiveness of justice in arbitration and civil proceedings, Moscow, 2001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
