Self-Regulation of Slippery Deadlines: The Role of Procrastination in Work Performance

We investigated the causes and impact of procrastination on “slippery deadlines,” where the due date is ill-defined and can be autonomously extended, using the unique applied setting of grievance arbitration across two studies. In Study One, using 3 years of observed performance data derived from Canadian arbitration cases and a survey of leading arbitrators, we examined the effect of individual differences, self-regulatory skills, workloads and task characteristics on time delay. Observed delay here is a critical criterion, where justice is emphasized to be swift and sure. Multilevel Modeling established trait procrastination as a substantive predictor of observed delay, equivalent to the environmental contributors of expediting the arbitration procedure or grievance complexity. Also, despite substantive negative consequence of delay for both arbitrators and their clients, arbitrators who scored one standard deviation above the mean in procrastination took approximately 83 days to write their decisions compared to the 26 days for arbitrators one standard deviation below the mean. In Study Two, we conducted a replication and extension survey with a much larger group of American arbitrators. Consistent with Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT), trait procrastination was largely explained by expectancy, value, and sensitivity to time related traits and skills, which together accounted for majority of the variance in trait procrastination, leaving little left for other explanations. For example, perfectionism connection to procrastination appears to be distal, being largely mediated by each of TMT’s core variables. Finally, procrastination was largely synonymous with a deadline pacing style, indicating that observed delay can be used as a proxy for procrastination as long as little or no prior work was done (e.g., a u-shaped pacing style is not synonymous). In all, our results indicate that procrastination is rampant in the workplace and has seriously detrimental effects.

SECURING EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEDURE: DEVELOPMENT OF THEORY, LEGISLATIVE AND PRACTICE

The article presents an analysis of the institution of securing evidence in the civil process from the point of view of the development of its legal regulation, doctrine and practice. The teaching of professor M.K. Treushnikov on the evidence is taken as a basis. Through the prism of his ideas, theoretical concepts of securing evidence are revealed, from prerevolutionary works to modern research; the sequence of the formation of norms on the securing evidence on the example of procedural codes of various periods; trends in the law practice of securing evidence. The correlation of the securing evidence with the elements of the judicial proof is revealed. It is substantiated that the securing evidence includes such elements of the structure of judicial proof as: indication of facts, indication of evidence and preliminary assessment. The end result of the procedural action to secure evidence is the possibility of implementing all subsequent elements – presentation, disclosure, investigation and final assessment of evidence. Conclusions are formulated on the results of the development of the institution of securing evidence, which from rather brief and obvious provisions of procedural legislation, a few practice has turned into an actual procedural activity. Its demand is predicted to grow in the context of digitalization of information, as well as due to the possibility of using it in the framework of arbitration. At the same time, an increase in the number of cases of unfounded appeal of interested parties to actions to secure evidence is noted. The authors support a critical assessment of the rule of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that the securing evidence is carried out by the arbitration court according to the rules for securing a claim, and a proposal for a unified regulation of this institution in accordance with the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

METHODOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DIALECTICAL CATEGORIES IN THE IDENTIFICATION AND STUDY OF PROBLEMS OF CIVIL AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE LAW

The article is devoted to the study of the use of some categories of dialectics both in identifying and in studying the problems of civil and arbitral procedure law. Each category allows to reveal its own peculiar features and properties of the branch of law and its structural subdivisions, not only to obtain certain conclusions, but, what is equally important, to put into research its own problems, the answer to which the use of this or that particular category gives. It is noted that each category allows to reveal some one side of the subject of research, but to reveal in depth. In particular, the author argues that a comprehensive disclosure of the essence of civil procedure law is impossible with the use of any one category. Only by covering all or most of them it is possible to fully and comprehensively disclose the essence of the subject of research. At the same time, each method implies the study only of certain problems, conditioned by it. The study of some other problems, “alien” to this method will not give the necessary results. Thus, it is impossible to solve the problems of the system of branch of law with the help of the activity approach.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERIENCED PERSONS

The category of “knowledgeable (experienced) persons” is not limited to experts only. Arbitration assessors and specialists are also referred to as knowledgeable persons; some scholars believe that a witness and even a judge can perform the functions of a knowledgeable person. The article focuses on the figure of a specialist, his consultations and responses to court inquiries. There is a lack of unification of the norms on the participation of a specialist in the Civil Procedure Code and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The effectiveness of seeking advice from a specialist is substantiated – this is a faster and less costly way of obtaining special knowledge necessary for considering a case. Consultation and examination are mutually complementary, the consultation may precede the examination, or, on the contrary, follow after the completion of the examination of the expert opinion, when questions have arisen to such a conclusion and the problem is solved with the appointment of additional or repeated examinations. The consultations are varied and subject to classification. It is substantiated, based on the differences in the nature of the consultations, that the consultation of a specialist on the use of technical means in the study of evidence cannot be compared with the consultation of a specialist on a complex scientific issue. As a classification criterion, the author proposes to consider the need for research and assessment of consultation, or the lack thereof. In the latter case, there is technical assistance and it would be legitimate not to classify it as evidence. However, research and assessment of the information presented is an attribute of working with evidence, therefore, in such cases, the status of evidence should be recognized for consultation.

Arbitration Hearing with Remote Participation: Necessary Innovations that Irreversibly Change Traditions

The COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic forced most arbitration centers in countries with a wide variety of legal traditions to switch to mass arbitration hearings in video conferencing mode in the spring of 2020. It turned out that hearings with remote participation of representatives of the parties, and sometimes arbitrators, have a number of advantages compared to regular hearings. A number of new possibilities arises and thus compensates the loss of certain possibilities adherent in physical presence of arbitration participants at hearings. The authors argue that most of the obstacles and shortcomings of the new format as a whole can be overcome with modern regulatory development, law enforcement, software, and hardware tools. The paper examines, among other things, the experience of the Arbitration Center at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, whose software and hardware complex and previously modernized arbitration rules made it possible to safely switch to a new mode of operation. New documents of international origin in this area are also being considered, indicating the need to ensure a balance between the effectiveness of arbitration proceedings on the one hand and the right of the parties to due process and fair treatment on the other.The authors conclude that there will not be a complete return to the previous practice with the end of the pandemic. However, a certain part of the meetings, taking into account the circumstances of the disputes, will return offline, the popularity of various mixed (hybrid) options will increase, which will not be difficult to put into practice due to the flexibility of the arbitration procedure. The flexibility of arbitration and the delegation to arbitrators of a number of issues related to the organization and conduct of arbitration proceedings, which require that opinions of the parties should be requested and considered in order to solve the dispute, makes it possible to ensure the optimal “format” of the arbitration procedure given the specific circumstances of the dispute. This procedure provides its participants, among other things, a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to present their positions, ensuring equal treatment of the parties and adversarial while ensuring the real effectiveness of the arbitration procedure, which allows in modern conditions to properly implement the principles on which arbitration is based.

Transformation of the Judiciary in Turkmenistan after 1991. Aspects of Development of Administrative Judiciary

The article examines the process of formation of the Turkmen judicial system after Turkmenistan declared independence in 1991. The stages of reforming and transformation of the judicial system in the Republic of Turkmenistan in different periods are studied: 1990–2000, 2001–2020. In addition, the structure of the judicial system of Turkmenistan, the system of courts of general jurisdiction (regional courts and local courts), the system of arbitration courts, judicial boards of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan (in civil cases, arbitration cases, administrative cases, criminal cases) is analyzed, and the judicial selfgovernment bodies of the Republic of Turkmenistan are also investigated: the National Conference of Judges, the Qualification Board of Judges, the Council of People’s Assessors at district courts. In addition, the norms of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan, the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan and the Code of the Republic of Turkmenistan on Administrative Procedures on issues arising from administrative and public legal relations are analyzed. The article draws attention to the lack of functioning of the constitutional judicial system and the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Turkmenistan, as well as the need to establish constitutional control over normative acts of the legislative and executive branches of the republic in the country. It is proposed to establish administrative courts in Turkmenistan in all regional centres of the country and the capital of the republic, as well as to adopt the Code of Administrative Procedure of Turkmenistan in the country. The article draws attention to the fact that the creation or liquidation of arbitration, regional or local courts would be carried out not only on the basis of a Presidential Decree, but also on the basis of a proposal of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkmenistan with the consent of the Parliament of the Republic of Turkmenistan.

THE ISSUE OF ENSURING MEASURES IN CORPORATE DISPUTES IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEDURE

The article analyzes the current problems of the application of measures to secure a claim for corporate disputes in the arbitration process. It also examines the grounds on which arbitration courts take measures to secure a claim, indicates the rules of law that govern this issue, and analyzes the law enforcement practice of arbitration courts.

Establishing the Circumstances of Civil Cases: Some Doctrinal and Practical Approaches

The paper analyzes certain provisions of civil procedural legislation in terms of their effectiveness as a means of establishing actual circumstances of civil cases by the court from the standpoint of doctrine and judicial practice. The authors examine the relationship between the presentation and disclosure of evidence, draw a conclusion about their close relationship, and their identification, sometimes admitted by judicial practice, is critically assessed. The question of the period for disclosure of evidence was investigated, in respect of which it was concluded that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, although not quite specific, but sometimes quite definitely allow this period to be established. Taking into account the stance of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, then authors propose a solution to the problem of the consequences of non-disclosure of evidence in a civil case. The paper analyzes individual norms and institutions that allow the court to establish the circumstances of civil cases without evidence or on the basis of explanations of the other party. It is concluded that the norm of the second sentence of Part 1 of Art. 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation is neither a legal fiction nor an evidentiary presumption. This is one of the manifestations of the action of the general rule for the distribution of the duty of proof. The authors support and justify the position that the norm of Part 31 of Art. 70 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is an evidentiary presumption, and the presumption not of fact, but of evidence. In relation to Part 3 of Art. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is concluded that establishment of the facts by the court by applying this norm does not mean obtaining true knowledge about them. Therefore, this provision of the civil procedure law is applied in judicial practice with extreme care.

The Unity of the Material and Procedural Elements of a Legal Entity

Introduction. For a long time, legal science has been discussing the understanding of a legal entity, its characteristics, its relationship with a citizen, as well as other associations of citizens and legal entities. The question of the combination of material and procedural principles in the figure of a legal entity is ambiguous. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The article was prepared using general scientific methods (systemic, logical) and special legal methods (comparative legal, formal legal). Results. The legal status of a legal entity as a participant in civil proceedings is based on the same principles and norms of law as those of a citizen. At the same time, a legal entity is a real organisation that acquires and exercises rights and assumes responsibilities through its bodies. In the context of the introduction of digital technologies into the activities of a legal entity, it is advisable to consider a legal entity as a legal device, consisting of certain elements, the main of which are civil rights and obligations that regulate the legal behavior of a legal entity. Discussion and Сonclusion. A legal entity acts in court as a plaintiff and a defendant, performing actions when there is a procedural form of violated or disputed rights. Since legal assistance to a legal entity can now be provided by persons who have documents of a higher legal education or a scientific degree in a legal specialty, it would be advisable to allow such a representative in a court session to decide for himself the choice of performing the procedural actions indicated in Part 2 of Art. 62 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation, if there is such a clause in the power of attorney.