Establishing the External Identity of Claims in Civil Commercial Proceedings

Abstract

The article analyzes judicial practice on the issue of establishing the external identity of claims in the arbitration process. The objectives of the article are to familiarize the reader with the positions of arbitration courts regarding the issue under consideration, to comprehend theoretical views on understanding the external identity of claims and to identify the correct approaches to the issue under consideration, allowing to avoid errors in law enforcement. To achieve this goal, the historical method was mainly used, as well as methods of comparison and analysis. As a result of the study, general conclusions were formulated. 1. Under the disputing persons in paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 127.1 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and clause 1, part 1, Аrt. 150 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation refers to the parties (plaintiff and defendant). Thus, the participation of a third party who does not make an independent claim in one of the identical disputes does not violate external identity. 2. External identity in the arbitration process is preserved when the procedural position of the parties changes, namely, that the former defendant becomes the plaintiff, and the former plaintiff becomes the defendant. 3. Not every change in the elements of a claim in the arbitration process will mean a violation of external identity, because identity is not equality. 4. It is necessary at the legislative level to provide the plaintiff with the opportunity to declare all competitive claims in one statement of claim, indicating the main (priority) and optional claims. The implementation of this approach will contribute to the real protection of the rights of entrepreneurs and will allow the court to significantly save the time required to consider such claims. 5. If the circumstances and evidence indicated in the second, identical claim are changed, supplemented, clarified or corrected to the extent that a new cause of action is created, then a change in the cause of action and a violation of external identity should be recognized.