Judicial reform continues: support for legislative amendments on arbitration and civil processes

The situation that resulted in the blockage of the draft bill of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that unifies the Civil and Arbitration processes is resolved.

On 23 December 2014, Pavel Krashennikov, the head of the State Duma Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration, and Procedural Legislation, commented on the unfavorable reception the committee gave the bill.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced the bill, on 29 October 2014, to streamline arbitration proceedings and minimize the burden on Arbitration Courts (a download of the original bill is available at http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(ViewDoc)?OpenAgent&work/dz.nsf/ByID&615B83B27835EDF243257D8200392650). The amendments include the introduction into the Arbitration Procedure Code of a mandatory complaint procedure to regulate several types of disputes, writ proceedings, expanded summary judgements, and private definitions. On 18 December 2014, during a session of the plenum of the Supreme Court, the chairman of the court, Vyacheslav Lebedev, remarked that the State Duma Committee viewed the Supreme Court draft bill negatively. Mr. Lebedev asked his colleagues not to withdraw the bill but to discuss further the proposed amendments to Procedural Legislation. Mr. Lebedev did not elaborate on the committee’s decision, aside from a reference to the Budget Code. The State Duma itself did not comment on its reasons for rejecting the proposal.

Pavel Krashennikov, a member of the State Duma, stated that the parliamentarians supported the Supreme Court decision to accelerate the legal procedures in the Arbitration Courts but that the bill affected not only procedural matters but also tax legislation. For example, it specifies the process of payment of state duty for writ proceedings in the courts of general jurisdiction as well as a stamp duty for writ proceedings in the arbitration courts. According to the State Duma regulations, these amendments should be made through various draft bills (article 108), one which the State Duma Committee on Budget and Taxes should consider and the other which the Committee on Legislation should review.

During the session of the plenum, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dealt with the problem and arranged a new version of the bill for amending the Tax Code of the Russian Federation that it sent to the State Duma.

The full version of the bills titled About amendments to the project of the Federal Law No. 638178-6, “Amendments to the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and the second part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation,” and Introducing to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly the draft Federal Law“Amendments to the second part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation,” approved in the resolutions of the Supreme Court session of 23 December 2014, Nos. 22 and 23, are at http://www.vsrf.ru/Show_pdf.php?Id=9701.

Meanwhile, on 19 December 2014, the State Duma passed, in its third reading, significant amendments to the Civil Procedure Code. Article 61 of the Civil Procedure Code now contains the following: “Based on the confirmation of a notary, no proof is required if the authenticity of a document is not refuted as prescribed in Article 186 of this code or if there is no fundamental breach of notary procedures” (see bill No. 558267-6). Now, court will recognize the circumstances the notary confirms without proof. For some reason, however, a similar rule is not present in the Code of Arbitration Procedure of the Russian Federation.

According to the media, the Legal Department of the State Duma noted that the amendment goes beyond what the legislature adopted in the first reading, and in terms of its content and the activities of notaries, it should be the subject of a separate regulatory act. Representatives of the legal community were astonished with the imminent approval of the amendment, which they believe requires more study and discussion, especially among notaries and those in judicial and legal circles.