The author of the paper, making a brief historical insight, comes to the conclusion that unification of institutions of complicity in modern civil procedural codes is predetermined by the development of both the doctrine and legislation. Explaining the main characteristics and types of procedural complicity, the author expresses an opinion on the acceptability for the Russian institution of mandatory procedural complicity of the American model that divides mandatory complicity into conditionally mandatory and absolutely mandatory. Based on judicial practice, the paper argues for the need to finalize the grounds for procedural complicity in administrative proceedings, taking into account the specifics of substantive administrative legal relations, as well as the need to expand the court’s ability to bring to court co-defendants based on the tasks of justice and judicial discretion. The author substantiates the conclusion that the first and second defendants involved in the case of challenging the decision, action (inaction) of an official, state or municipal officer under Part 2 of Article 221 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, in fact, are co-defendants. The paper emphasizes the importance of finalizing normative regulation of the institution of complicity in administrative proceedings.

The paper is devoted to examination of some problems related to the participation of bodies, organizations and individuals in administrative cases in order to render a decision hereon. The author analyzes the grounds and objectives of such participation, determines the range of subjects obliged to render an opinion and the procedure for their involvement (entry) into the judicial administrative procedure, elucidates peculiarities of a procedural standing of the relevant bodies, organizations and individuals. On the basis of the research, the author concludes that it can serve to improve the legislation on administrative proceedings and the practice of its application, in particular: on expediency of supplementing the CAP of the Russian Federation with norms that would allow bodies and individuals to be involved in giving opinions not only in cases provided for by the Code, but also in other cases when the court considers it necessary, on specificity of the mechanism involving commissioners for the rights of the child in the judicial administrative proceeding in relevant categories of cases that allows combining an active role of the court and the human rights function of the commissioner.

The paper is devoted to the study of the provisions of modern civil procedure legislation with regard to the grounds for the cancellation or amendment of court decisions in cassation in the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The formulation of these grounds is unclear, which prompts their analysis. The author carries out an analysis in comparison with the grounds for the cancellation or modification of court decisions at other verification stages of civil proceedings — the appellate instance and in the cassation courts of general jurisdiction. The problem chosen for study has both theoretical and practical significance. The author substantiates that, despite the complexity and redundancy of the wording of the provisions of the law on the grounds for the cancellation (altering) of court decisions in the second cassation, in essence these grounds are the same as in the appellate and first cassation instances. The author also raises the issue of the impact of the quality of procedural legislation on the effectiveness and accessibility of justice in civil cases.

The paper is dedicated to the memory of Honored Lawyer of the RSFSR, Doctor of Law, Professor Maria S. Shakaryan. The paper highlights some historical aspects of the development of the doctrine of civil procedural legal capacity and legal capacity, highlights the contribution that Professor Maria S. Shakaryan made to the study of these categories. It is noted that many of the issues that Professor Shakaryan raised in her works remain controversial in the science of civil procedural law to this day. Special attention is paid to dissemination of the concepts of procedural capacity and legal capacity to all participants in procedural relations, as well as to the court. The author argues that this approach destroys the integrity of the concept of not only procedural capacity, but also procedural legal capacity. Separately, the author examines the issue of the need to involve citizens recognized by the court as legally incompetent to participate in person in court proceedings. Attention is drawn to the problem of ensuring adequate protection of the rights of citizens recognized by the court as legally incompetent, which is relevant in practice and unresolved in civil procedural legislation.

The paper examines the question of whether relations developing in arbitration proceedings are included in the subject of civil procedure law. The author describes the positions of researchers and the arguments justifying them. In the paper, the author derives a criterion for the unification of public relations under the subject of civil procedure law. As such a criterion the paper defines an objective social need or interest in the legal regulation of certain public relations in a unified system of procedural safeguards (in a civil procedural form), taking into account the nature of these relations and ensuring to the maximum extent the real protection of the rights and legally protected interests of persons. It is concluded that the legal regulation of public relations developing with the arbitral tribunal is designed to satisfy the need for a qualitatively different procedure for resolving civil cases as compared with the system of justice. These relations objectively are non-procedural in their nature and are not included in the subject matter of law of civil procedure. In confirmation, the fact is given that in arbitration proceedings there is a rejection regarding procedural guarantees that are fundamental for civil procedure law.

The paper examines the issues of modern Russian legal education that developed under the auspices of the Bologna educational system. Since the introduction of the Bologna rules, which Russian innovators interpreted exclusively in a subjective way, domestic education has not improved. On the contrary, all those positive characteristics that education possessed within the Russian borders began to gradually disappear, striving to blindly copy foreign variants. Many problems have appeared in education, mainly due to the departure from Russian cultural values and the attempt to replace them with foreign standards. As a result, educational levels have appeared, which, in theory, require an original educational approach. But such an approach requires saturation of the curriculum material of one level to the detriment of another, which is hardly feasible. It is emphasized that Russian traditions in education, their reanimation, including a return to specialist’s degree, are able to raise the educational level of Russia to the proper height again. The paper briefly comments on the efforts of Russian scientists, mainly professors of the Higher School of Economics, in the field of improving the educational process. The problem of the effectiveness of lecturing in conditions of simplified information acquisition is raised. As the main sketch from this area, the author gives a review of the work by Maria S. Shakaryan, who proposed a certain algorithm for reading introductory lectures.

The author makes an attempt to analyze the status of an arbitrazh court that enters into a procedural legal relationship with the participants during consideration of a particular case. The study was conducted on the basis of both general theoretical approaches and approaches developed by the science of civil procedure law to the essence of legal relations and civil procedural legal relations. Taking into account the place and role of the arbitrazh court in the system of judicial authorities, the work identifies specific features of this subject of procedural legal relations. In the author’s opinion, the fact that judicial power is exercised by the arbitrazh court through a procedural legal relationship is of particular importance for the characterization of the arbitrazh court. The status of the arbitrazh court as a judicial authority, in turn, determines the form of its procedural activity. Through the performance of procedural actions, the arbitrazh tribunal exercises its powers. The question of the competence of the arbitrazh court is considered as its characteristic, which determines the ability to become a subject of a procedural legal relationship and, at the same time, to act as the basis for its entry into a procedural legal relationship. The author analyzed legal institutions, as a result of which, when considering a particular case, two arbitrazh courts acquire mutual procedural rights and obligations.

The paper is devoted to examination of issues of identifying administrative procedural legal capacity of persons named as parties to a dispute in an administrative statement of claim, and the consequences of the lack of administrative legal capacity. The main attention is paid to identifying the administrative procedural legal capacity of someone who is named in the administrative statement of claim as a subject with public authority (meaning a state authority, another state body, a local government body, an official, a state and municipal official). As the author highlights, administrative procedural legal capacity of the bodies of state power specified in Part 1 of Article 5 of the Code on Administrative Procedure (CAP) of the Russian Federation, other state bodies, local self-government bodies, their officials as their ability to be parties and interested parties in an administrative case is predetermined by their administrative capacity and legal capacity, and the administrative capacity and legal capacity of these persons are inseparable and together they represent their competence. This allows the author to conclude that the condition for recognizing administrative procedural legal capacity for these persons is that they have competence in a certain public sphere. Lack of administrative procedural legal capacity should be recognized as one of the instances when an administrative statement of claim is not subject to consideration in courts and as one of the grounds to reject a claim under Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 128 of the CAP of the Russian Federation.

The institution of jurisdiction in civil cases has undergone significant changes over the past 20 years with numerous additions been made to it, which indicates a change in the concept of distribution of cases between courts, developed during the preparation of the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR in 1964. A complicated judicial system, as well as an increase in the variety of cases submitted to the courts, required new rules establishing the relevance of a particular case to the court. However, as the analysis of the changes that took place showed, the most of the changes were made to resolve current problems beyond any general concept replacing the Soviet one. In order to improve the institution of jurisdiction in civil cases, an integrated approach is needed that will allow us to elucidate the meaning of the norms of jurisdiction at the present stage of the development of civil procedure law; to develop reasonable criteria for the distribution of cases between different courts; to increase safeguards of the interests of persons involved in the case when transferring cases from one court to another; to improve the mechanism for transferring cases; to resolve the question of admissibility and boundaries of the agreement on jurisdiction; to substantiate the criteria of insignificance of cases to determine jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace; to update the grounds for alternative, exclusive jurisdiction.

The paper examines the main scientific works by Maria Sumbatovna Shakaryan, devoted to the problem of subjects in civil procedural law. The evolution of the author’s views on the definition of the concept of «persons involved in a case» is characterized, the criteria for their delimitation, as well as unifying features are determined. Based on an analysis of numerous works by M.S. Shakaryan, it is argued that the author distinguished between the concepts of «subject of civil procedural law» and «subject of civil procedural legal relations,» which was an essential aspect in determining the persons involved in a case. The paper gives particular attention to the polemics of Maria Sumbatovna Shakaryan with other lawyers on the subjects of procedural legal relations and the way substantive legal relations influence them. The paper emphasizes the role of Maria Sumbatovna Shakaryan in the development of civil procedural legislation in the USSR and the Union republics, and notes different approaches to determining the persons involved in a case in the Civil Procedure Code of the Union republics.

The paper touches upon the general theoretical provisions of law and civil proceedings, set out in one of the scientific works of Professor M.S. Shakaryan. The basis for assessing these views is an ontological approach to defining the meaning of existence as a philosophical category inextricably linked with momentary existence, presented as a facet of the projection of personal and social experience into the future. Reliance on the existential interpretation of the category of meaning in this approach helps to identify the philosophical content of civil proceedings, assess the role and significance of such a phenomenon as error for judicial enforcement in civil disputes. The essential features of this phenomenon are revealed, attention is drawn to the difference in the nature of a party’s mistake in a civil proceeding and a court’s mistake, the phenomena of civil law and criminal proceedings determined by existence are compared with an error as a phenomenon of civil proceedings. The approach to considering a court decision as a turning point in the transformation of objectively studied personal experience into confirmed public experience is substantiated.

The «Field» (trial by combat) is a procedural institution known to the sources of law of medieval Rus’ at least from the 13th century. For several centuries, the «field» was widely used as a means of proof, and was subject to detailed legal regulation as early as in the 15th century. A number of major regulatory legal acts regulated the conditions and procedure for the trial by combat, its legal consequences and the amount of «field duties». The possibility of participating in such a trial was also regulated by law in detail. The surviving materials of judicial practice make it possible to clarify this information and assert that the participants to the trial of combat could have been not only the plaintiff, defendant, witnesses and their «hires,» but also the judges who considered the case before the reporting procedure. In addition, slaves who represented their masters and were not considered «hiremen» could take part in a trial by combat. It should also be noted that, despite the negative attitude towards trials by combat on the part of the Russian Church, monks and clergy did not refuse to participate in the «field». At the same time, the legal papers show that they understood the bias of this means of proof and a gradual decrease in the number of fights, which became rare as early as in the 16th century, although the final disappearance of traces of this legal institution from legislation occurred only in the 17th century.

The paper pays special attention to the importance and long-overdue need for a more detailed study of historical and legal terminology, a revision of its etymology and semantics, legal meaning using all kinds of methodological structures, which, in turn, can significantly expand the scientific understanding of the legal life of past generations, become the key to understanding the intricacies of their legal life, legal consciousness and many other important aspects of life. The work reflects the ideas of a multidimensional study of Russian statehood and culture, which the author has been conducting for many years. It is especially emphasized that the study of the legal terminology of the period of medieval Rus’ should not be carried out in isolation from the spiritual traditions and customs and mainly the religious and philosophical foundations of the Russian people, which were decisive in the development of society, states and law. Using extensive research material, the author makes an attempt to reconsider the issues of the genesis of medieval criminal law. In pre-revolutionary, Soviet and post-Soviet historical and legal science, a purely narrow understanding of the concept of «murder» was formed as a crime against life in the form of intentionally causing death. Russian memorials of law related to the Middle Ages contain information indicating that this term denoted a fairly wide range of offenses and crimes — both against the life of Orthodox Christians and against their health, decency, religion, etc.

In the context of informatization of society, the issue of the relationship between government activities and information is relevant. There are not many works devoted to the study of the information function of the state in domestic science. The paper examines and analyzes the theoretical approaches of domestic researchers, set out in the author’s monographs. Scientists consider the information function as one of the main functions of the state, which has subfunctions that were previously expressed in a pre-functional state. Through the «goal — task — function» algorithm, the concept is revealed, the prerequisites for the formation, signs, means and methods of the information function are given. The paper draws attention to the peculiarity of the function, which is expressed in the influence on people’s consciousness through information influence. Since the information function involves managing the information sphere, the relationship between the concepts of «information sphere» and «information space» is considered, and a definition of the information sphere is given. As a result, essential characteristics and a generalized definition of the information function are formulated. An area requiring further study is noted.

In connection with the problem of inclusion of objects produced by artificial intelligence (AI) into civil transactions turnover, the issue of subjectivity of rights to them must be resolved. One of the possible solutions (some researchers call it the main one) is considering granting the status of a subject of law to artificial intelligence itself. The paper is devoted to criticism of this approach.

The social behavior of people is formed on the basis of their physical essence, this relationship will remain valid in the future. It is obvious that artificial intelligence is obviously devoid of physical essence. Even if we talk about a legal entity (in a number of systems, which are fictitious entities), the consequences of its activities are one way or another assigned to individuals.

It seems appropriate to endow AI with the object characteristics of an intellectual complex — in line with property complexes in civil law, assigning initial rights to computer program developers. Considering AI as a subject of civil legal relations seems not only unjustified, but also prevents a doctrinal solution to the issue of legal personality, which is a prerequisite for the formation of the norms of current legislation.

The paper examines the relationship between the institutions of protection of a bona fide purchaser and the invalidity of a transaction. The institution of protection of a bona fide purchaser, establishing the conditions under which the owner cannot reclaim their property, embodies the idea of finding a balance between the interests of the owner and the person who acquired the property in good faith and for compensation, and extends the corresponding idea also to other institutions of civil law. The institution of protection of a bona fide purchaser went beyond the boundaries of the institution of vindication action, acting as a measure of a fair resolution of a dispute, and acquired an inter-institutional character, influencing, in particular, the institution of invalidity of a transaction. Challenging a property transaction by the owner is one of the ways to protect the rights of the owner. However, the use of this method should only apply to exceptional situations due to the extraordinary nature of restitution; in any case, its application should not lead to a violation of the rights and interests of persons who are not parties to the transaction. To ensure the stability of rights to property, it is necessary that a voidable transaction declared invalid does not entail legal consequences from the moment it is recognized as such by the court, and not from the moment it is completed. It happens since, despite the restoration of rights by the owner through compensatory restitution, the retroactive nature of the invalidity of the transaction will affect the rights purchasers of property. This can be achieved by changing the legislative provisions on the invalidity of a voidable transaction and the perception of the classical pandect doctrine about the moment from which a voidable transaction declared invalid is considered invalid.

The significance of the risk category is generally recognized in Russian civil law. This institution becomes even more relevant in times of crisis, in times of economic instability and market volatility. An analysis of current judicial practice demonstrates that during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic and the introduction of sanctions restrictions, entrepreneurs were often forced to resort to amendment and termination of contracts due to a significant change in circumstances and to file claims for exemption from liability for violation of contractual obligations due to the occurrence of the force majeure. Russian courts apply these legal institutions in close connection with the category of business risk, however, due to the lack of a legal definition of this term and the wide variety of concepts of risk in legal doctrine, judicial discretion plays a significant role in resolving cases. Extremely broad discretionary powers of judges and legal uncertainty regarding business risk can lead to destabilization of civil law transactions and negatively affect the economic development of Russia. In this regard, the author advocates consolidating the concept of business risk, as well as its permissible and justified limits, if not at the legislative level, then at least in the explanations of Russian higher courts.

The paper is devoted to the protection of women from violence and discrimination within the framework of the activities of the bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Special Mechanisms for the Protection of Women’s Rights of the OAS form the Inter-American system for the protection of women’s rights, while only the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Court) has jurisdiction to make decisions binding on states. An analysis of the judicial precedents of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights allows us to conclude that violence against women in the Latin American and Caribbean region is classified as follows: violence against women committed by public servants; violence against women committed by private individuals; violence against women in the context of armed conflict; violence against indigenous women. The paper provides examples of cases in which the Court recognized the responsibility of states for non-compliance with international legal norms enshrined in the acts of the OAS, which resulted in a violation of women’s rights to a dignified life, free from violence and discrimination. Despite the imperfection of the OAS control mechanisms and the general politicization of this intergovernmental organization, its activities to protect women’s rights are unique and deserve in-depth study.