Abstract

The paper examines the procedural rules establishing conditions for assigning claims to summarily triable cases that are not limited by the amount of claims, as well as the practice of arbitrazh courts and courts of general jurisdiction on their application, which indicates the lack of uniformity in the interpretation of these conditions. The author concludes that such claims should, according to the documents submitted by the plaintiff, meet the criteria of indisputability. However, indisputability of the claims identified after referring the case for consideration in a summary procedure does not in itself prevent their consideration in the procedure mentioned above. The author points out the need to distinguish between the conditions for the confirmation of debt by the defendant and the conditions for the recognition of monetary obligations by the defendant; the author justifies the guidelines in understanding and evaluating the latter. The paper also highlights inconsistency in the legal regulation of the balance between writ cases and cases of summary proceedings in civil proceedings. If in the arbitrazh procedure all cases of writ proceedings for which a writ has not been issued fall under the category of summary proceedings that do not require the absence of a dispute concerning the issue of law. In civil proceedings this does not occur and the relevant claims are considered in the general claim procedure, since they cannot be attributed to the category of summary proceedings due to the lack of the criterion of indisputability. In conclusion, the author suggests additional explanations be provided to the courts regarding the formal features of this category of summary proceedings and indicate the need in civil proceedings for summary proceedings to set a limit not of 100,000 rubles, but 500,000 rubles.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call