Courts of general jurisdiction will receive a legal instrument to prevent procedural delays: key changes and risks for organizations
Bill No. 1035487–8 “On Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation” (CPC RF) has been submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation. The authors of the initiative propose to supplement the CPC with a new Article 98.1, borrowing provisions from the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF) — Article 111 (“Imposing court costs on a person abusing their procedural rights”).
What is proposed to be changed
According to the explanatory note to the bill, its purpose is to create a mechanism allowing courts of general jurisdiction to impose court costs on a party abusing its procedural rights. In particular, it includes: “
general grounds” for imposing court costs on a party abusing procedural rights — for example, disrupting court hearings, delaying proceedings, obstructing the consideration of a case and the adoption of a lawful judicial act;
“special grounds” — for example, violation of the claim or other pre-trial dispute resolution procedure provided for by law or contract (e.g., failure to respond to a claim within the prescribed time limit or leaving a claim unanswered).
Why this is relevant
A similar mechanism already exists in arbitration proceedings – Article 111 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows an arbitration court to impose court costs on a person who abuses their rights or fails to fulfill their procedural obligations.
However, there is no such provision in civil proceedings (courts of general jurisdiction). The authors of the bill point out that this leads to inequality in the procedural opportunities of the parties and contributes to the prolongation of court proceedings.
As experts note, the introduction of this mechanism could help to reduce the workload of the courts and speed up the consideration of cases.
Important nuances for parties to civil disputes
• The concept of abuse of procedural rights has no exhaustive definition either in current legislation or in the draft law. Judicial practice shows that the assessment of the parties’ actions and the establishment of a causal link between the delay in the proceedings and the actions of a party remain quite flexible.
• It is important to note that the introduction of such a provision will change the strategy of the parties in courts of general jurisdiction — for example, in disputes between citizens, as well as between citizens and organizations, if the dispute is not related to entrepreneurial activity. Violation of the pre-trial dispute resolution procedure (contractual or established by law) may be grounds for imposing court costs on a party, even if it wins the case.
• For legal entities involved in arbitration proceedings, a similar mechanism is already in place in accordance with Article 111 of the APC RF. Nevertheless, the introduction of a similar provision in the CPC RF is aimed at ensuring uniformity in the courts’ approach to unconscientious participants in the process and disciplining the parties.
• Organizations and legal departments should pay attention to pre-trial procedures, deadlines for responding to claims, and active participation in the process in order to minimize the risk of their actions being classified as abuse of procedural rights and the subsequent imposition of court costs.