Application of the Institute of Private Rulings of Arbitrazh Courts

A private ruling as a procedural institution aimed at eliminating identified violations of the rule of law in the course of justice and preventing their recurrence is well known to civil proceedings and is actively used by courts of general jurisdiction. At the same time, there has always been an ambiguous attitude in the legal community towards private rulings in the arbitrazh process, which found their legislative consolidation back in the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 1992, due to the divergence of views on their purpose and legal essence, fragmented legal regulation, as well as multidirectionally developing judicial practice. In addition, for a fairly long period of time, the institution of private rulings was generally excluded from the arbitrazh process, which negatively affected its importance and relevance on the part of the judicial system. Currently, private rulings form an important procedural tool used by arbitrazh courts both to strengthen the rule of law and to prevent offenses in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities also for the purpose of informing the bodies of inquiry or preliminary investigation about the signs of a crime discovered while dealing with the case. However, the differences in the legal regulation of private rulings in the arbitrazh process compared with regulation in civil or administrative proceedings, significant features and significantly different approaches in the practice of their application by arbitrazh courts represent private rulings as a contradictory and conflicting legal institution, which leads to a decrease in its effectiveness and applicability in the work of courts.

1. Zaykov D. E. Zloupotreblenie protsessualnymi pravami v arbitrazhnom i grazhdanskom protsesse // Zakonodatelstvo. — 2014. — № 10. — S. 48–53.

2. Kazantsev P. O neobkhodimosti vozvrashcheniya instituta chastnogo opredeleniya v APK RF // Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess. — 2009. — № 6. — S. 17–20.

3. Kontseptsiya edinogo Grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo kodeksa RF / Vstup. slovo P. V. Krasheninnikova. — M., 2015. — 224 s.

4. Marants Yu. V. Opredelenie kak sudebnyy akt. Voprosy teorii i pravoprimeneniya // Zakon. — 2007. — № 11. — S. 61–75.

5. Materov N. V. Chastnoe opredelenie arbitrazhnogo suda // Vestnik VAS RF. — 1999. — № 7. — S. 53–56.

6. Toguzaeva E. N., Zarubina M. N. O neobkhodimosti pravovoy propagandy v grazhdanskom protsesse: teoretiko-prikladnoy analiz // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2013. — № 6. — S. 29–45.

7. Fedorenko N. V., Semenova A. G. Analiz chastnykh opredeleniy, vynesennykh Arbitrazhnym sudom Rostovskoy oblasti v 2000 godu, na predmet sootvetstviya ikh formy i soderzhaniya trebovaniyam arbitrazhnoprotsessualnogo zakonodatelstva // Vestnik VAS RF. — 2001. — № 8. — S. 90–97.

8. Shpenev A. A. Arbitrazhnye sudy i preduprezhdenie pravonarusheniy v sfere ekonomiki // Vestnik VAS RF. — 1999. — № 5. — S. 73–77.

9. Yudin A. V. Razgranichenie zloupotrebleniy protsessualnymi pravami v tsivilisticheskom protsesse so smezhnymi pravovymi yavleniyami // Zakon. — 2022. — № 7. — S. 30–38.