Цивилистический процесс: формы мышления в рамках вынесения судебных актов

Konstantin S. Ryzhkov

doi:10.21638/spbu14.2023.205

Authors

Konstantin S. Ryzhkov Ural Branch of the Russian State University of Justice, 63, ul. Energetikov, Chelyabinsk, 454084, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3882-6612

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2023.205

Abstract

The article analyzes the problems associated with the logical content of judicial acts in civil and arbitration proceedings. In this case, the problems of application of such forms of thinking as concept, judgment and inference within the framework of the content of judicial acts are considered in the most detail. Special attention is paid to the use of evaluative concepts by courts, as well as to their formulation of syllogisms as a special form of inference. The purpose of the study is to establish the specifics of the application of the main forms of thinking when passing judicial acts in civil law proceedings. To achieve this goal, the author has set the task of analyzing each of the forms of thinking from the point of view of procedural legislation and legal technique in terms of formulating the texts of judicial acts. Also, the author has set the task of classifying approaches to the use of syllogisms by courts in the framework of decisions in the case. In the present study, methods such as the logical method, as well as the system structural, hermeneutic and formal legal methods were applied. The application of the above methods made it possible to fully achieve the goals and objectives of the study, formulate scientifically grounded conclusions. The author, based on the results of the study, revealed the peculiarities of the formulation and application of concepts, judgments and conclusions in the text of judicial acts issued in the course of civil and arbitration proceedings. The mechanisms of establishment by the court of the content and scope of concepts that are not enshrined in law, as well as evaluative concepts, have been identified. In addition, the author has classified the approaches to the use of syllogisms by courts in the framework of decisions in the case. The author also proposed changes in terms of improving the norms of the current procedural legislation aimed at specifying the requirements for judicial decisions.

Keywords:

court, judicial act, court decision, validity, motivation, judicial discretion, syllogism

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Библиография

Анохин, Виктор С. 2013. «Оценка доказательств и судейское усмотрение в арбитражном и гражданском судопроизводстве». Юридические записки 3 (26): 81–85.

Гаджиев, Гадис А. 2012. «Принцип правовой определенности и роль судов в его обеспечении качество законов с российской точки зрения». Сравнительное конституционное обозрение 4 (89): 16–28.

Гольмстен, Адольф Х. 1913. Учебник русского гражданского судопроизводства. СПб.: Типография М. Меркушева.

Ермакова, Ксения П. 2010. «Правовые пределы судебного усмотрения». Журнал российского права 8 (164): 50–58.

Загайнова, Светлана К. 2007. Судебные акты в механизме реализации судебной власти в гражданском и арбитражном процессе. М.: Волтерс Клувер.

Ивин, Александр А. 2006. em>Философия: Энциклопедический словарь. М.: Гардарики.

Камбарова, Несипбала Ш. 2013. «Функции судебного решения в гражданском судопроизводстве». Известия вузов (Кыргызстан) 6: 14–18.

Кашанина, Татьяна В. 2011. Юридическая техника. М.: Норма; Инфра-М.

Кириллов, Вячеслав И. 2020. Логика. М.: Норма; Инфра-М.

Лукьяненко, Марина Ф. 2009. «Условия формирования судейского усмотрения при применении гражданско-правовых норм, содержащих оценочные понятия». Российский юридический журнал 5 (68): 144–155.

Романец, Юрий В. 2012. Этические основы права и правоприменения. М.: Зерцало.

Чертова, Надежда А., Ирина С. Юринская. 2015. «Механизм принятия судебного решения: теоретические аспекты». Вестник Северного (Арктического) федерального университета. Сер. Гуманитарные и социальные науки 3: 118–125.

Юсупова, Гульмира Х. 2009. «Значение судебной практики в правовой системе Республики Казахстан». Вестник Института законодательства и правовой информации Республики Казахстан 4 (16): 55–57.

Bulayenko, Oleksandr. 2020. “The French Supreme Court’s decision on creative commons plus (CC+) commercial licensing and mandatory collective management of the right to remuneration for communication to the public of commercial phonograms”. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51: 668–679.

Hoven, Paul van den. 2011. “The unchangeable judicial formats”. Argumentation 499. Дата обращения 2 июня, 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-011-9229-4.

Jellema, Hylke. 2020. “The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation”. Synthese. Дата обращения 1 марта, 2023. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02743-8.

Leitão, Jorge. C., Sune Lehmann, Henrik P. Olsen. 2019. “Quantifying long-term impact of court decisions”. Applied Network Science 3. Дата обращения 1 марта, 2023. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41109-018-0110-3.

References

Anokhin, Viktor S. 2013. “Evaluation of evidence and judicial discretion in arbitration and civil proceedings”. Iuridicheskie zapiski 3 (26): 81–85. (In Russian)

Bulayenko, Oleksandr. 2020. “The French Supreme Court’s decision on creative commons plus (CC+) commercial licensing and mandatory collective management of the right to remuneration for communication to the public of commercial phonograms”. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51: 668–679.

Chertova, Nadezhda A., Irina S. Iurinskaia. 2015. “The mechanism of judicial decision-making: theoretical aspects”. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser. Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki 3: 118–125. (In Russian)

Ermakova, Kseniia P. 2010. “Legal limits of judicial discretion”. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava 8 (164): 50–58. (In Russian)

Gadzhiev, Gadis A. 2012. “The principle of legal certainty and the role of courts in ensuring it the quality of laws from the Russian point of view”. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie 4 (89): 16–28. (In Russian)

Gol’msten, Adol’f Kh. 1913. Textbook of Russian civil procedure. St. Petersburg, M. Merkushev Publ. (In Russian)

Hoven, Paul van den. 2011. “The unchangeable judicial formats”. Argumentation 499. Accessed June 2, 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-011-9229-4.

Iusupova, Gul’mira Kh. 2009. “The importance of judicial practice in the legal system of the Republic of Kazakhstan”. Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel’stva i pravovoi informatsii Respubliki Kazakhstan 4 (16): 55–57.(In Russian)

Ivin, Aleksandr. A. 2006. Philosophy: Encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow, Gardariki Publ. (In Russian)

Jellema, Hylke. 2020. “The reasonable doubt standard as inference to the best explanation”. Synthese. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02743-8.

Kambarova, Nesipbala Sh. 2013. “Functions of judicial decision in civil proceedings”. Izvestiia vuzov (Kyrgyzstan) 6: 14–18. (In Russian)

Kashanina, Tat’iana V. 2011. Legal technique. Moscow, Norma Publ.; Infra-M Publ. (In Russian)

Kirillov, Viacheslav I. 2020. Logic. Moscow, Norma Publ.; Infra-M Publ. (In Russian)

Leitão, Jorge. C., Sune Lehmann, Henrik P. Olsen. 2019. “Quantifying long-term impact of court decisions”. Applied Network Science 3. Accessed March 1, 2023. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41109-018-0110-3.

Luk’ianenko, Marina F. 2009. “Conditions for the formation of judicial discretion in the application of civil law norms containing evaluative concepts”. Rossiiskii iuridicheskii zhurnal 5 (68): 144–155. (In Russian)

Romanets, Iurii V. 2012. Ethical foundations of law and law enforcement. Moscow, Zertsalo Publ. (In Russian)

Zagainova, Svetlana K. 2007. Judicial acts in the mechanism of the exercise of judicial power in civil and arbitration proceedings. Moscow, Volters Kluver Publ. (In Russian)