ПРОТИВОРЕЧИЕ ПУБЛИЧНОМУ ПОРЯДКУ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ КАК ОСНОВАНИЕ ДЛЯ ОТМЕНЫ РЕШЕНИЯ ТРЕТЕЙСКОГО СУДА И ОТКАЗА В ВЫДАЧЕ ИСПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОГО ЛИСТА

Abstract

The contradiction with the public order of the Russian Federation is an unconditional basis for cancellation of the decision of the arbitration court and refusal to issue a writ of execution. What is meant by the public policy? There is no definition in the legislation. According to the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation under the public policy are understood the fundamental legal principles (principles) having the highest imperative and universality. Study and analysis of the practice of consideration and resolution of cases about the cancellation of arbitration court decisions and refusal to issue writs of execution by arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction shows that the content of the concept of public policy in view of the abstract nature of normativity, inherent in the concept of fundamental principles of Russian law, is interpreted by judicial practice very widely. Since establishing in what cases the decision of an arbitration court violates the fundamental principles of Russian law, and hence the public policy of the Russian Federation, refers to the discretion of the court considering the case, and the boundaries of application of this ground for reversal of decision are determined by the discretion of the court in the context of the specific circumstances of the case. The article also concludes that the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which lies in the fact that since the arbitration courts do not exercise judicial power and are not part of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, the state courts are not empowered to verify the legality of decisions of arbitration courts, which involves identifying the correctness of interpretation and application of law by the court of arbitration, must be understood systematically. According to the author, it is necessary to take into account that the function of state courts to control arbitration proceedings consists, among other things, in ensuring compliance of the results of arbitration proceedings with fundamental legal values, which include the legality of decisions rendered by arbitration courts in terms of interpretation and application of rules of law.