Autorytarne formy władzy a realizacja prawa do cywilnoprawnej ochrony prawnoprocesowej przez obywateli w okresie PRL

The study describes the functions of civil procedure as a legal instrument from the times of the socialist authoritarian state of the People’s Republic of Poland. The positions expressed in the doctrine regarding the purpose and principles of conducting civil proceedings, regulated in the Act of 16 November 1964, Code of Civil Procedure, which was adopted during the authoritarian power of the dominant political party of the Polish United Workers’ Party, were presented. Provisions of procedural law, dating back to the authoritarian rule of democratic socialism in the People’s Republic of Poland, were intended to provide protection for the socialized economy and to enable the state to control civil-law relations. Civil proceedings were intended to guarantee the possibility of protecting not only the rights of the individual, but also, or rather first and foremost, of the units of the socialized economy, as well as of the disputes that might arise in connection with relations between the state and its citizens, and between citizens. This principle required the authorities conducting civil proceedings to ensure adequate legal and procedural protection in the event that a party or participant in the proceedings was a unit of the socialized economy. Civil proceedings in which the court, within its powers, could interfere with the legal sphere of an individual in connection with the conferral of discretionary power, was another legal tool and instrument allowing the state to influence private-law relations. In addition, the authoritarianism of the state power at that time was also manifested in this.

SCIENTIFIC VIEWS OF M.K. TREUSHNIKOV THROUGH THE PRISM OF PUBLICATION ACTIVITY

This article is an attempt to briefly analyze the scientific activity of Mikhail Konstantinovich Treushnikov, which is carried out through the prism of his publication activity in all its manifestations. In addition, this study presents an attempt to collect a complete bibliography of M.K. Treushnikov. The significance of this study is determined both by its uniqueness, which is due to the use of information from various sources, and the presence of individual theses and conclusions formulated by the authors. Thus, this work focuses on the fact that M.K. Treushnikov, in addition to considering the problems of civil and arbitral procedural law, paid attention to the development of problems of higher education, including in terms of methodology, and that, perhaps, allowed him to create a real school of civil procedure law in the walls of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. In addition, the thesis is put forward and substantiated that M.K. Treushnikov was actively engaged in questions of the law of evidence, as well as judicial law, which were widely reflected in his numerous works published in various journals and collections, as well as embodied in monographs.

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.

THE METHODOLOGY OF TEACHING CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEMORIES OF MIKHAIL KONSTANTINOVICH TREUSHNIKOV)

The article is dedicated to the memory of Mikhail Konstantinovich Treushnikov, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Scientist, Head of the Department of Civil Procedure of the Law Faculty of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The article analyzes the methodology of teaching civil procedure, focuses on the methodology of lecturing, seminars, and game processes. Mikhail Konstantinovich paid great attention to the methodology of teaching civil procedure. The author of the article offers a study of the section “Methods of Teaching Law” from the book “Creative Search in the Science of Civil Procedure Law” by M.K. Treushnikov published in 2020. This section presents methodological recommendations on how to prepare and give lectures for newly elected judges at the republican training courses for legal officers on two subjects: “Preparation of civil cases for trial is a mandatory stage of the process”, “Types of evidence in civil proceedings”. The other two articles in this section are devoted to different issues. One is devoted to the methodology of teaching law in non-law universities (on the example of Moscow State University), the other is written on the basis of a speech “Traditions and Innovations in Legal Education” at the conference meeting of the heads of the departments of social sciences of the Lomonosov Moscow State University on 16 February 2007 and shows the role of departments in solving the problems of legal education.

JUDICIAL REFORM OF THE LATE 20TH – EARLY 21ST CENTURIES IN RUSSIA

The author analyzes the reform of the Russian legislation regulating the activity of courts for consideration of civil cases, the reform, which began in the 1990s and continues to this day. Highlights the main stages of the reform related to the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993, changes in the judicial system, with the adoption of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 1992, 1995, 2002, with a major change of Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR 1964 and the entry into force of the current Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, 2002. In addition, the author calls the current trends in the development of procedural legislation, including reforms made by Federal Law of 28 November 2018 No. 451-FZ.

ON THE ESSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE USE OF NEW DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES IN CIVIL PROCEDURAL ACTIVITIES

In this article, taking into account the historical aspect, an analysis of the immanent content of such a key category as “evidence” in civil procedure is given. A gradual change in theoretical and practical points of view on the essence of judicial evidence is revealed: from a simple indication that it should be understood as a fact that convinces the justice body of the rightness of the side of a legal incident (I. Vladislavlev and others); before argumentation – proof is a dialectical trinity of content, form and procedural method of obtaining and researching legally significant information (M.K. Treushnikov and others). In the aspect of the ongoing dynamic digital transformation of public relations, the question of what essentially constitutes electronic evidence, whether it should be allocated as an independent category, or whether it is covered by means of evidence already existing in the law, is being studied. Taking into account international and Russian experience, additional arguments are presented in favor of the fact that electronic evidence can be successfully used in the consideration and resolution of civil and administrative cases by courts, regardless of their autonomous consolidation in the current procedural legislation, along with written, material and other traditional means of proof. This is explained by the fact that by themselves electronic evidence fully meets the basic criteria that characterize any evidence in modern civil procedure.

CLASS ACTIONS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE: ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

The issues of legal regulation and the first experience of law enforcement of class actions on the example of chapter 22.3 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are considered. Despite the generally unified legal regulation of class proceedings in arbitration and civil proceedings, in the practice of courts of general jurisdiction there are specific issues that need to be addressed. In article value of unity of all conditions of qualification of the declared requirements as the class action is underlined, and also consequences of non-compliance of conditions of certification are revealed. Attention has been drawn to the necessity of application of the general rules of action proceedings along with the special rules of chapter 22.3 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in consideration of class actions. Also within the framework of this study the author concludes that each new legal institute raises a number of controversial issues in the process of law enforcement. And that is why it is very important to refer to the general provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, developed under the guidance of Professor M.K. Treushnikov, which allow to find the best solution for this or that problem of legal regulation and law enforcement.

NECESSARY (COMPULSORY) EVIDENCES IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

In this article, the author examines the concept and procedural and legal significance of necessary (mandatory) forensic evidence. It analyzes the formulated by M.K. Treushnikov, who was the first in the procedural doctrine who paid attention to the legal obligation to use certain means of proof when establishing certain legal facts, the positive rule of admissibility of evidence, the positions of other authors on the issue of necessary evidence in civil proceedings. The rule of necessary (obligatory) evidence is considered as a special rule of judicial proof. At the end of the study it is concluded that the allocation of necessary evidence is carried out from the same content of factual data, reflecting the same fact, based on the peculiarities of their procedural form. Necessary evidence in its form is a specific type of a written document or expert opinion. Thus, the rule of proving the circumstances of the case with the use of necessary evidence concerns the form of evidence, beyond its content. The thesis is also put forward that necessary evidence, due to the specifics of the procedure for its formation, the presence of requirements established by law to its form and content, has a significant evidentiary value.

THE STANDARD OF PROOF UNDER LITHUANIAN AND RUSSIAN CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The article is dedicated to the memory of Professor M.K. Treushnikov. The professor was the head of the candidate of law thesis of the author of the article, therefore, the beginning of the article is devoted to the author’s memories of M.K. Treushnikov. Since the main field of scientific research of M.K. Treushnikov is related to evidence and proof in civil proceedings, the main part of the article is devoted to the issues of the standard of proof. On the basis of the comparative method the author analyses how the approach to the standard of proof in Lithuania and Russia changed after 1990, both in legal doctrine and case law. It is concluded that there are many similarities in the standard of proof between Lithuanian and Russian civil procedure law, but there are also differences, which are due both to different legal doctrine approaches to this issue and to different case law. In particular, the author points out that there must be common standards for such cognitive, logical activity, which exist regardless of the legal system operating in one state or another, for there is only one logic.