Untitled

Sherstyuk, A. N.

doi:10.1023/a:1023782205956

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First of all, it should be mentioned that the idea of accessible justice seems to be an independent principle of justice. This opinion is based on the position of prof. Semenov, who developed the concept of accessibility of justice as one of the procedural principles in the second half of the 20 th century [11]. This position is also shared by a number of modern authors [11][12][13].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This opinion is based on the position of prof. Semenov, who developed the concept of accessibility of justice as one of the procedural principles in the second half of the 20 th century [11]. This position is also shared by a number of modern authors [11][12][13]. The use of the principle of accessibility of justice is revealed in a situation of no inadequate and biased obstacles to access to justice mechanisms [14,15].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sherstyuk, be accompanied by guarantees of protection of the defendant -postponement of proceedings, delivery of a copy of the modified claim, availability of the defendant to present its objections in the response to the claim and time to prepare for the process, etc. [11].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modification of the claim: limits and their impact on the availability of justice in the Russian Federation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study is to prove the need to lift restrictions in civil proceedings and proceedings in arbitration courts in terms of the limits of modification of the claim and to provide the applicant with the possibility of simultaneous modification of the subject and the basis of the claim while maintaining their previously stated legally protected interest. Certainly, this may be possible only and exclusively with the approval of the judge, as well as with the preservation of all procedural guarantees for the defendant. The methodological basis of the research is the general, general scientific and private scientific methods of cognition used by legal science in the object-subject sphere of cognition of the general theory of law. In addition, a number of synthetic, integrative methods of research are used, which are included in the methodology of interdisciplinary science, which is relevant for modern socio-humanitarian science. The results of the study are the justification that these limits in some cases can completely block the applicant’s access to the mechanisms of justice. The authors argue that this is unacceptable since it violates both the subjective right of the applicant to a defense, and one of the most important principles of justice is the principle of accessibility. The authors also considered the issue of the validity of the limits of the modification of the claim. The novelty of the work is in the results of the analysis of the practice and the alleged hypothetical situations in which the existence of limits for the modification of the claim does not allow the applicant to defend its rights and legitimate interests, as in the identified causes, conditions, and consequences of such phenomena.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%