A civil case is a major process in which all circumstances and facts must be taken into account when making a decision. But not in all situations it is possible to gain access to all the grounds for changing the course of the case in a timely manner.

Dear readers! The article talks about typical ways to resolve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve exactly your problem- contact a consultant:

APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and 7 days a week.

It's fast and FOR FREE!

It is possible to consider newly discovered circumstances in a civil case only if certain conditions are taken into account. One of these is the fact that a party is unable to provide data earlier, during the consideration of the case or before a decision is made on it.

Judicial practice shows that any person related to the case can participate in attracting newly discovered circumstances. Thus, the application can be filed not only by the plaintiff and defendant, but also by third parties.

basic information

Overview of the concept and its categories

Newly discovered circumstances are those facts that were not included in the materials and are not known to the court or the parties to the proceeding, but already existed at the time of consideration of the civil case.

Both of the above-described cases, when adding circumstances to the case, must be accompanied by a justification that will confirm the significance of the legal fact.

If the circumstance is not considered significant, then it may be rejected. It is the presence of grounds for bringing a fact into the case that is the most important part of the circumstance.

There are several categories of discovered circumstances, approved by Articles No. 311 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation:

• which are essential for the civil case under consideration, but they were not previously known to the plaintiff;
• false evidence was submitted, there was evidence of falsification, the expert’s conclusion is considered false;
• there were crimes committed by judges or other participants in the case.

New circumstances are determined by Articles No. 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and No. 311 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation:

• reversal of a court decision made by an arbitration court or local government body, which became the basis for making a decision in the civil case under consideration;
• if the transaction was declared invalid according to a court ruling, due to which the decision in the civil case under consideration was declared unfounded or illegal;
• the law referred to by the prosecutor in the case under consideration was declared incorrect or inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• when changing the norms and laws that are used to investigate a specific case, but only on condition that the content contains references to the possibility of revising decisions that have already been made;
• if, according to the decision of the European Court, the ruling made contradicts the provisions of the convention for the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Main features according to the law

Article No. 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes the procedure for considering a case when newly discovered circumstances are accepted, but it does not indicate the procedure for considering the application, on the basis of which the case will be reviewed. Also, this article does not indicate the time frame for consideration of the application.

In order to determine the duration of consideration of the application, it is necessary to refer to Article No. 316 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the arbitration court must process the application within one month.

The same period for checking the case will be when applying to the arbitration court of first instance, which is established by Article No. 152 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The processing time for the application will depend on the court to which the application is filed. Thus, when considering the circumstances by a magistrate, the period is equal to one month, when considering the circumstances by a district court - 2 months, and so on.

Persons who have the right to apply to the court to review the case are determined in accordance with Articles No. 392 and No. 393 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. In this case, the status of participants in new proceedings is determined according to the original case, for example, “plaintiff in the case.”

Unknown status

Legal proceedings are necessary in order to find out the truth of the case under consideration. To do this, various facts are used, some of which, for some reason, may be unknown to one of the parties to the civil case under consideration.

Procedural abuses are suppressed by using newly discovered circumstances in a civil case. The parties to the legal relationship themselves must defend their own position. The initiative will manifest itself in the form of petitions, the involvement of new acts, and so on.

The unknownness of newly discovered circumstances to the court and the party is a condition necessary for compliance with the principles of procedural activity of the party and the discretion of the process as a whole. In this case, tasks must be completed within a reasonable time frame. But not all situations actually meet this condition.

Example: a case is being considered to collect interest from a debtor due to failure to pay on time. The debtor himself went to court with an application for a re-examination of the court case, due to newly discovered circumstances, which is a letter on behalf of the bailiffs confirming the absence of a debt as such after the transfer of funds.

But the case was not reviewed, since the Federal Law “On Accounting” obliges the debtor himself to maintain and take into account primary accounting documents. This means that the debtor had evidence and knew about it, but did not provide the relevant information to the court.

Each newly discovered circumstance under consideration must go through an assessment of the reality of having access to the transmitted information.

Example 1: The request to reconsider the case was refused due to the fact that the circumstances did not correspond to the status of a newly opened one. A resolution of the district administration, issued long before the start of the case, was provided as evidence. For this reason, the circumstance cannot be considered newly discovered.

Example 2: the application to declare the contract void was rejected. The basis referred to when submitting the application is the passport number entered in the power of attorney. Instead of seven characters, it used only five. But such an application was rejected due to the fact that the power of attorney was already in the case materials, which means that the plaintiff could have known about the contents of the note.

Central details

Central differences from the new ones

Newly discovered circumstances are not the same thing as new circumstances. These two concepts are different things.

Newly discovered circumstances are facts that existed at the stage of making the decision, but for some reason they were not available to both parties and the court. But their obscurity will need to be proven.

New circumstances are those facts that were not added to the case and are not known to the court or the parties to the proceeding, since they did not exist before the consideration of the case.

Circumstances and evidence differ in that the latter are the basis for determining the existence of a legal fact. All new evidence that arises during the trial or after the judges make a decision is not sufficient to reconsider the case due to newly discovered circumstances.

If such evidence is available, it is possible only through the court of cassation or a supervisory authority, after which the case is sent for investigation of new facts.

In order to become familiar with the grounds for reviewing judicial acts, it is necessary to refer to Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. All grounds must be strictly established, which avoids incorrect interpretation of facts in order to maintain a stable flow of litigation.

Grounds for reopening the case

The grounds that are sufficient to reopen the case are specified in Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The case can be reopened in the following cases:

• important events were discovered, information about which the applying citizen could not have had at the time of filing the application, considering the case and rendering a verdict;
• inaccurate or false information was transmitted;
• During the proceedings, a participant in the case committed a crime.

Any participant in the case has the right to file a petition based on newly discovered circumstances.

In its absence, a revision of the resolution is possible if new circumstances are discovered:

• the decision or determination was canceled due to the unfoundedness of the verdict;
• the transaction is declared invalid, which means that it is impossible to make a conclusion on its basis;
• The Constitutional Court recognized that the decision made contradicts the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• The European Court decided that the ruling made against the defendant is inconsistent with the provisions of the adopted Convention aimed at protecting human rights and freedoms;
• The Presidium of the Supreme Court has adopted new rules of law that are used when making a decision in a civil case.

Main stages of the procedure

The procedure for reviewing a case due to newly discovered circumstances is possible if the specific stages are observed:

Reconsideration of the case based on newly discovered circumstances is possible in the following courts:

• appellate authorities;
• cassation authorities;
• supervisory authorities;
• first instance.

System and procedure for review

The review of the case based on newly discovered circumstances is based on the norms of the civil procedural code. Legislative acts are no different.

The only differences will be in the explanation of the application of the rules. Thus, there is a certain difference between newly discovered circumstances and new evidence.

Explanations are included in the list of significant acts that contradict the laws of the regulatory act.

The procedure for considering a case is the same for all types of cases. The application must be submitted only with the signature of a citizen related to the case. The created application must satisfy all formal requirements that apply to any application. To do this, you can refer to any sample.

After the application is accepted by the judge, it must be considered. Despite the fact that the legislation does not establish cases in which it is possible to leave an application without progress, such a practice is used in some situations.

If there are errors or inaccuracies in the application, the citizen has the right to correct them within the allotted time. If all the requirements have been met, the judge will schedule a hearing.

At the meeting, the first speaking party is the applicant, after which another participant in the case speaks. During the meeting, all arguments are considered, after which newly discovered circumstances in the case are used.

When all the debates are over, the judge makes a decision to reconsider the case or to refuse the appeal. The procedure will be the same for all cases, regardless of the form of legal proceedings.

Arbitrage practice

What circumstances are newly discovered?

Those specified in paragraph 1 of part 3 of article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. In this case, it is necessary to prove that the applicant did not have access to the circumstance and did not know about its existence until the moment of filing the relevant application.

Revision due to new circumstances

New circumstances on the basis of which the case may be reviewed are indicated in part No. 4 of Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

False data in the case - grounds for review

False information should entail the issuance of an unfounded decision, in accordance with paragraph 2 of part 3 of Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The basis for reviewing the case due to the presence of a crime from a person participating in the case, in accordance with paragraph 3 of part 3 of Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. In 2019, the circumstances must be recognized as significant, in accordance with paragraph 1 of part 3 of Article No. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Important parameters

The main parameter when filing an application for review of a case due to newly discovered circumstances is the reliability of the data and the fact that it was not available until the time of application.

Thus, the court will not accept an application that is based on a document already used in the case, or a resolution published before the decision was made, and so on.

A sample application for review of a court decision that has entered into legal force due to newly discovered or new circumstances.

Any court decision that has considered the case on its merits may be revised based on newly discovered circumstances. This includes both court decisions and rulings on termination of proceedings, appeal and cassation rulings. To cancel a court decision, you must file an application for review with the same court that made the decision.

The grounds for revision are indicated in, while newly discovered circumstances include:

• circumstances significant to the case that were not and could not be known to the applicant;
• knowingly false testimony of a witness, knowingly false expert opinion, knowingly incorrect translation, falsification of evidence, resulting in the adoption of an illegal or unfounded court decision and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force;
• crimes of the parties, other persons participating in the case, their representatives, crimes of judges committed during the consideration and resolution of this case and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

New circumstances include:

• cancellation of a court decision of a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitration court or a decision of a state body or local government body that served as the basis for the adoption of a court decision in this case;
• recognition by a court decision of a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitration court that has entered into legal force as an invalid transaction, which entailed the adoption of an illegal or unfounded court decision in this case;
• recognition by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of a law applied in a specific case as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in connection with the adoption of a decision on which the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation;
• establishment by the European Court of Human Rights of a violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when the court considered a specific case, in connection with the decision on which the applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights;
• definition (change) in the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the practice of applying a legal norm applied by the court in a specific case in connection with the adoption of a court decision, according to which an application for review of the case was filed in the manner of supervision, or in the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, issued based on the results of consideration of another case by way of supervision, or in a resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The application must be filed with the court within three months from the moment the specified circumstances became known. There are no special requirements for completing an application for newly discovered circumstances, but it is recommended that it be completed in compliance with the general requirements for business documents. To make writing a statement easier, we recommend using the basic rules for filing a statement of claim.

IN ___________________________
(name of court)
From __________________________
(full name, address)
in civil case No. _______
by ___________ (full name of the plaintiff)
to ____________ (full name of the defendant)

Application for review of a court decision based on newly discovered circumstances

“___”_________ ____ the court issued a court decision, which _________ (indicate briefly the essence of the adopted court decision). The court decision entered into legal force “___”_________ ____

However, there are circumstances provided for in Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which are the basis for reviewing the court decision _________ (indicate what the newly discovered or new circumstances are in relation to Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

Based on the above, guided by Article -394 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

1. Review the court decision _________ (give full details of the court decision) based on newly discovered (new) circumstances.
2. Cancel the court decision and consider the civil case on its merits.

List of documents attached to the application (copies according to the number of persons participating in the case):

1. Copies of the application
2. Documents confirming the presence of newly discovered or new circumstances for reviewing the court decision

Date of application “___”_________ ____ Signature of the applicant _______

Revision of decisions and determinations based on newly discovered circumstances is an independent stage of the civil process, purpose which is the verification of the legality and validity of court decisions that have entered into legal force.

Initiated at the request of persons participating in the case, other persons challenging the judicial act in connection with the discovery of circumstances that existed at the time of consideration of the case, which were not and could not be known to the person during the trial, or new circumstances that arose after the adoption of the court decision and are of significant importance for correct resolution of the case.

A newly discovered circumstance is considered a legal fact with which the law connects the emergence, change or termination of legal relations. Moreover, this fact existed at the time the case was considered and a decision or determination was made, but was not and could not be known to the court and the person participating in the case. Moreover, we are talking about a fact that can affect the movement, prospects and outcome of the case. In other words, if the court had known about such a fact or circumstance when considering the case and examined it, it could have made a completely different decision on the case.

The grounds for reviewing court decisions that have entered into legal force are:

1) circumstances essential to the case that were not and could not be known to the applicant;

2) knowingly false testimony of a witness, knowingly false expert opinion, knowingly incorrect translation, falsification of evidence, which resulted in the adoption of an illegal or unfounded court decision and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force;

3) crimes of the parties, other persons participating in the case, their representatives, crimes of judges committed during the consideration and resolution of this case and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

44. Proceedings based on new circumstances in civil proceedings.

New circumstances- these are circumstances that arose after the adoption of a court decision; having significant significance for the correct resolution of the case and specified in Part 4 of Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation:

New circumstances include:

1) cancellation of the acts that served as the basis for the adoption of a court decision in this case;

2) recognition by a court decision of a court of general jurisdiction or an arbitration court that has entered into legal force as invalid a transaction that entailed the adoption of an illegal or unfounded court decision in this case;

3) recognition by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of the law applied in a particular case as inconsistent with the Constitution

4) determination by the European Court of Human Rights of a violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with the adoption of a decision in a specific case;

5) determination (change) in the resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the practice of applying the legal norm applied by the court in a specific case.

Right to initiate proceedingsprovided the parties, the prosecutor, and other persons participating in the case. The right to initiate this proceeding also belongs to the legal successors of the persons participating in the case.

The deadline for filing such an application is calculated:

3 months from the date of establishing the basis for the revision of Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

To specify the calculation of the deadline for filing an application, see Art. 395 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

Having considered the application for review,the court rules a reasoned ruling that either satisfies the stated request for review based on newly discovered circumstances and cancels the court decision, or denies the review.

Based on the court ruling to cancel(due to newly discovered circumstances) of a court decision that has entered into legal force, the case is returned to the stage of the process in which the canceled court decision was made. A newly made decision can be appealed on general grounds.

45.Proceedings to consider applications for the award of compensation for violation of the right to legal proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execution of a court order within a reasonable time. (Chapter 22.1.)

acc. from Art. 244.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, this right is possessed by a person who believes that his right to legal proceedings within a reasonable time, including pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case or the right to execution of a court decision within a reasonable time, has been violated:

State body;

- limited places self-destruction;

By another body;

Organization-institution;

An official.

An application for an award of compensation for violation of these rights is submitted to the court.

The deadline for filing an application is 6 months from the date of entry into force of the last judicial act.

Application for an award of compensation for violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or the right to execution of a court order within a reasonable time may also be filed before the end of the proceedings in the case if the duration of the consideration of the case exceeded three years and the interested person previously applied to expedite the consideration of the case in the manner established by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Application for award of compensation for violation of the right to execute a judicial act within a reasonable time may be filed with the court during the period of execution of the judicial act, but no earlier than six months from the date of expiration of the period established by federal law for the execution of the judicial act, and no later than six months from the date of completion of the proceedings for the execution of the judicial act.

Application for award of compensation for violation of the right to criminal proceedings within a reasonable time may be filed by an interested person in court within six months from the date of entry into legal force of the court verdict passed in this case, or another decision, ruling, resolution adopted by the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, head of the investigative body, court, which terminated the criminal case legal proceedings. Provided that the person to be brought as an accused has been identified, an application for an award of compensation may also be filed before the end of the criminal proceedings if the duration of the criminal proceedings exceeded four years and the interested person previously applied to expedite the consideration criminal case in the manner established by the criminal procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.

Application for award of compensation for violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time cannot be considered by a judge if he has previously taken part in the consideration of the case in connection with which the grounds for filing such an application arose.

Application procedure:

The application is submitted to the court authorized to hear the case

The application is submitted through the court that made the decision

Term: 3 days from the date of receipt of the application to the court

The court has the right: accept the application; leave without movement and return. The consideration period is 2 months for applications for legal proceedings and execution of decisions within a reasonable time.

46. ​​Grounds and procedure for courts of general jurisdiction to issue a court order. Grounds and procedure for courts of general jurisdiction to make a decision in absentia. Features of the entry into force and appeal of a court order and a decision in absentia.

In the current Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation the norms about a court order are contained in ten articles (121-130), combined in chap. eleven.

According toPart 1 Art. 121 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federationcourt order is a judge’s decision made on the basis of an application for the collection of sums of money or for the recovery of movable property from the debtor according to the requirements specified in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

A court order is an independent type of court decision in civil cases, which is issued following the results of writ proceedings, which is a simplified procedure for protecting a violated subjective right in a court of first instance.

Writ proceedings are initiated on the initiative of interested person (claimant). The person against whom the claim is made is called the debtor.

Cases regarding the issuance of a court order fall under the jurisdiction of the magistrate.

Regarding territorial jurisdiction, general rules apply, which are provided for in Art. 28-32 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with Art. 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, a court order can be issued based on requirements based on:

1) a notarized transaction;

2) a transaction made in simple written form;

3) protest of the bill for non-payment, non-acceptance and undated acceptance, made by a notary.

Also, a court order can be issued for claims for collection:

1) alimony for minor children not related to establishing paternity, challenging paternity (maternity) or the need to involve other interested parties;

2) from citizens arrears on taxes, fees and other obligatory payments;

3) wages accrued but not paid to the employee;

4) expenses incurred in connection with the search for the defendant, or the debtor, or a child taken from the debtor by a court decision, declared by the internal affairs body. This list of requirements for which a court order can be issued is exhaustive.

Application for a court order paid by state duty in the amount of 50% of the state duty collected when filing a property application. If the judge refuses to accept the application, the person may file a claim in court, then the paid state fee shall be offset against the state fee payable. If all requirements are met, then the judge accepts the application for a court order.

General grounds for refusal in accepting an application for a court decision, Art. 134, 135 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. They apply to all types of production. And special grounds are contained in Art. 125 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The conditions for issuing a court order are:

1) provision by the claimant, along with the application, of all documents confirming the obligations of the debtor;

2) absence of dispute;

3) the debtor did not inform the court of his objections within the period established by law;

4) the documents presented provide a comprehensive picture of the essence of the case.

In accordance with Art. 126 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation a court order on the merits of the stated claim is issued within five days from the date of receipt of the application for a court order. A court order is issued without a trial or calling the parties to hear their explanations. It is drawn up in two copies, one of which remains in court, the second is sent to the claimant, and the debtor is given a copy of the court order. The law does not establish a time limit within which a copy must be sent to the debtor; it seems that it should be minimal. Within 10 days, the debtor has the right to submit objections regarding its execution. If the debtor receives objections, the judge cancels the court order and explains to the claimant the right to seek protection of his rights through litigation. The ruling to cancel the court order cannot be appealed. When , if no objections are received from the debtor, then the judge issues a second copy of the court order to the recoverer, who, within three years, can contact the bailiff service personally or petition the court to send it to the bailiff for execution.

The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation contains Ch. 22"Absentee proceedings."

Absentee proceedings - this is the consideration of a case by a court without the participation of the defendant who did not appear in court, although he was duly notified of the time and place of the trial.

A decision in absentia allows you to resolve a dispute when the defendant evades appearing in court, when he does not submit a petition to consider the case in his absence. In Part 1 of Art. 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation provides that in the event of a failure to appear at a court hearing by a defendant who has been notified of the time and place of the court hearing, who has not reported valid reasons for the failure to appear and has not asked for the case to be considered in his absence, the case may be considered in absentia proceedings. The court issues a ruling on the consideration of the case in this manner.

To proceed with a claim in absentia proceedings, the following grounds must be present:

1) failure of the defendant to appear at the court hearing;

2) duly notifying the defendant of the time and place of the court hearing;

3) absence of messages from the defendant about the presence of valid reasons for failure to appear at the court hearing;

4) absence of a request from the defendant to consider the case without his participation;

5) the absence of objections from the plaintiff to the consideration of the case in absentia proceedings.

In case participatesseveral defendants then a decision in absentia is not allowed if at least one defendant appears at the court hearing. Consideration of the case in absentia proceedings will be possible in the event of failure of all defendants to appear at the court hearing.

Lack of plaintiff's consent to consider the case in absentia entails the obligation of the court to postpone the hearing of the case (Part 3 of Article 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with the regulatory provisions of Art. 237 Civil Procedure Code Russian Federation, the defendant has the right to file an application to the court that made the decision in absentia to cancel such a decision within 7 days from the date of delivery of a copy of this decision to him. Or the parties can appeal the default judgment on appeal.

In accordance with the requirements of Art. 238 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, defendant,

the person appealing the default judgment must provide evidence to the court, confirming the validity of the reasons for his failure to appear at the court hearing and the inability to notify the court about this, as well as evidence that could change the content of the decision. Consequently, if the court considers the reason for the defendant’s absence disrespectful, and the evidence presented by him is insufficient, the application to cancel the default judgment remains unsatisfied, about which the court makes a ruling.

Defendant's application to cancel the default decisions can be satisfied. This means that the court, having studied all the circumstances and assessed the evidence presented by the defendant, comes to the conclusion that the defendant’s failure to appear in court was caused by valid reasons.

Cancellation of a default judgment leads to the resumption of consideration of the case essentially in the same or a different composition of the court.

A new trial is conducted according to the general rules of legal proceedings, which, among other things, means that it is impossible to re-issue a decision in absentia. Thus, a defendant who has been duly notified (a court notice with acknowledgment of delivery must be sent to him), but who has not appeared in court, will be able to appeal the court’s decision only in cassation (Articles 336, 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

Revision of decisions of the authorities dealing with disputes and cases of crimes that have entered into force may be carried out according to the rules Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. New edition The rules establish the circumstances under which this is permitted. Let's take a closer look at it.

Grounds for re-examination of decisions

These include:

1. Newly discovered facts. They are indicated in Part 3 of Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. To reconsider decisions, the circumstances must arise before the adoption of the act and be significant for the case.
2. New circumstances. They are enshrined in part four of the norm under consideration. These circumstances must arise after the decision is made and be significant for the resolution of the case.

Newly discovered facts

In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, these include:

1. Essential facts that the applicant did not know about and could not have been known to him.
2. Knowingly false information provided by a witness, expert, incorrect translation, falsification of evidence, which led to the adoption of an unfounded/illegal decision and established by a sentence that has entered into force.
3. Crimes of participants in the proceedings, other persons involved in the proceedings, as well as their representatives, judges, committed within the framework of legal proceedings. They must be confirmed by a verdict that has entered into force.

Other circumstances

New facts include:

Commentary to Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation

Traditionally, the review of decisions made in cases is carried out by a higher authority. The law, however, provides several exceptions to this rule. In some cases, courts have the right to conduct extra-institutional control of their own decisions. At its core, this procedure is a revision of acts based on newly discovered or other significant circumstances. Reconsideration, as the norm indicates, is carried out in relation to decisions that have entered into force. In the legal literature, this procedure is referred (and quite rightly) to the functions of self-control of authorized authorities. Analysis of Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with comments from legal scholars shows that this is due to the fact that the qualification of facts as newly discovered as a result of their discovery is carried out, in fact, by the body that adopted or changed the previously issued act.

Specifics

Accumulated during the implementation of the provisions enshrined in Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure, judicial practice shows that the implementation of the provisions of the norm is an independent stage of the civil process. Together with supervisory and cassation proceedings, according to the rules of which the revision of decisions that have entered into force is also carried out, this stage has an exceptional character. It acts as an additional tool in the mechanism for protecting the interests and rights of legal entities and citizens.

The essence of the procedure

In accordance with the position formulated by the Constitutional Court, the right to defense in court, guaranteed by the Constitution, presupposes the possibility of eliminating errors made by the courts even after consideration of the case in that instance, the decision of which, according to industry legislation, is considered final in the sense that it cannot be revised in in the usual way. Re-examination of the act is allowed within the framework of additional proceedings - on newly discovered facts. Application of Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows, therefore, to correct errors. We are talking about those facts that could not be identified earlier, but as a result of which the infringed interests and rights of legal entities and citizens were not protected. The ECHR establishes that one of the mandatory principles of the functioning of the judicial system is the inviolability and finality of acts that have entered into force. However, he pointed out that the review procedure itself does not contradict the provision of legal certainty to the extent that it is implemented to correct errors.

An object

It is represented by the decisions that have entered into force. Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation applies to acts of any bodies that conclude the proceedings in the case. These include first instance decisions, appeal/cassation rulings/rulings. Within the meaning of Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, acts of the Presidium of the Supreme Court are also subject to revision. Determinations on termination of proceedings, leaving applications without consideration, adopted at all stages of proceedings, can also act as an independent object of application of the norm.

Additionally

The object of application of Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure there may be determinations of the first, appellate, supervisory, and cassation instances, which do not complete the process at a separate stage. Revision of such decisions is permitted if the legislation expressly provides for the possibility of challenging them. Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure also applies to determinations that impede the progress of the case. For a more complete implementation of the provisions of the norm in question, the object can be determinations of all authorities that can be appealed exclusively together with the decision.

Characteristics of circumstances

In Part 2 of Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation establishes the conditions under which decisions can be revised. If we talk about newly discovered facts, then, according to the norm, they must exist at the time the act is issued. In this case, these circumstances are taken into account if the applicant was not and could not have been aware of them. In the theory of law, their characteristics are developed in sufficient detail. A newly discovered circumstance should be considered a legal fact that determines the emergence, termination or change of legal relations. It must have a direct and significant connection with the matter at hand.

Important point

Newly discovered facts must be distinguished from changed circumstances. The latter are the grounds that were used when making the decision, but were subsequently subject to adjustment. These circumstances may be used when filing another claim. New evidence does not act as newly discovered facts. This is due to the following. Newly discovered facts that were not known to the court when making a decision, ruling, determination are understood to be circumstances to be established. Accordingly, facts already confirmed by new evidence cannot be used as grounds for revising the act in accordance with the norm in question. Judicial practice under Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation shows that not all previously unknown circumstances can be referred to by the applicant. Only those facts that relate to the subject of proof and may influence the conclusions of the authority when making a decision will be significant.

Crimes of the parties and other participants in the process

To revise the decision, the very fact of illegal actions of these persons is sufficient. In this case, it will not matter whether they influenced the content of the act adopted in the case or not. At the same time, crimes committed by judges serve as the basis for re-examining the decision on newly discovered facts, if they occurred during the proceedings. The fact of an unlawful act must be confirmed by a sentence that has entered into force. However, the possibility of revising the act in the presence of circumstances certified by other procedural documents is also provided for by law. Thus, Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure includes the resolution/ruling of the court, prosecutor, inquirer/investigator on the termination of proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the issuance of an act of amnesty or pardon, due to the death of the accused, or the subject’s failure to reach the age established for prosecution under UK.

New legislation

Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (new wording) establishes the possibility of revising the resolution in connection with circumstances that arose after the issuance of the act that entered into force. Their exhaustive list is enshrined in part four of the article under consideration. Such circumstances include, first of all, the cancellation of a decision of an instance of general jurisdiction, arbitration, as well as an act of a government agency or local government structure, which served as the basis for making a contested decision in the case. Of these, the most common is the refutation of a fact established prejudicially and used as the basis for a determination or decision. In any case, the authority is obliged to confirm that the circumstances that were previously recognized as beyond the scope of the case are significant for considering and resolving it on its merits. Failure to study them in the prescribed manner can or could lead to the adoption of an unreasonable/illegal decision. Circumstances established by other bodies, with the exception of judicial ones, are not considered prejudicial. They must be proven according to the general rules within the framework of the proceedings. Accordingly, if we talk about such a basis for revising a resolution as the repeal of acts of a government agency or local government structure that served as the reason for its adoption, then we must take into account that:

1. Their content should form the basis of the decision made. In other words, the court accepted them as proper confirmation of the circumstances to be proven in the case.
2. They should not act as the subject of a separate (independent) trial.

Hierarchy of norms

Resolving cases in accordance with constitutional provisions, the terms of international agreements and other acts is the responsibility of the court. Having identified during the consideration of a dispute that a legal document does not comply with a norm that has greater legal force, the authority must apply the latter. The corresponding rule is enshrined in Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Part 2). If the act underlying the decision is declared invalid in the future or canceled according to the procedure established by law as inconsistent with a document with greater force, this circumstance cannot act as a new one. This is due to the fact that the authority, in fact, should not have been guided by this act. The court was obliged to make a decision in accordance with the rules that had greater force.

Invalidity of the transaction

This circumstance is also considered new in the context of the norm under consideration. Considering Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with comments from lawyers, it can be noted that legal scholars draw attention to the fact that the invalidity of a transaction must be confirmed by a decision made by an authority of general jurisdiction or arbitration that has entered into force. It is worth noting that a similar rule is present in the APC (Article 311). Invalid transactions may be void and voidable. Such differentiation is carried out depending on the need for a judicial decision. If it is required, then the transaction is voidable; if not, it is void.

Difficulties of application

Analyzing the practice of arbitration courts, which used as a basis for canceling an effective decision, one can note the ambiguity and inconsistency of approaches to resolving this issue. This, in turn, became the reason for quite active disputes over whether we are talking only about a voidable transaction or about a void one too. Thus, in one of the cases the following conclusion was made: “The agreement was declared void, therefore, the facts related to this cannot act as newly discovered circumstances, since invalidity occurs regardless of its recognition by the court.” The correctness of this position is generally confirmed by the doctrine of law. Indeed, the nullity of a transaction does not entail legal consequences and implies invalidity from the moment of conclusion, regardless of the court decision. The parties not only could, but should have known that the agreement did not comply with the standards. In this regard, the relevant circumstance is not newly discovered and is not used as a basis for revising the decision.

Explanations of the Armed Forces

In plenary Resolution No. 52 of 2011, the Court indicated that the basis for revising an act is the recognition of the invalidity of a transaction (void or voidable) by arbitration or a general jurisdiction that resulted in the issuance of the contested act. It must be borne in mind that this circumstance applies if there is confirmation. In particular, we are talking about the fact that the operative part of the decision contains a conclusion on the recognition of the invalidity of a void/voidable transaction or on the implementation of the corresponding consequences.

Part four: paragraph 4

Art. 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation provides as a basis for reviewing a decision the identification by the ECHR of violations of the provisions of the Convention establishing freedoms and human rights during the consideration of a case by the authority, in connection with the decision on which a citizen filed a complaint with the European body. To study this circumstance, you should refer to Federal Law No. 54. This normative act recognizes the right of a Russian citizen to apply to the ECHR to protect his interests and freedoms within six months from the moment when the last legal instrument provided for by domestic legislation was used. It is worth noting that the violation established by the European Court in criminal proceedings related to the implementation of the provisions of the Federal Law that does not comply with the Convention acts as a basis for resuming the process in the case. The corresponding provision is enshrined in Article 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A similar rule is provided for in Article 311 of the APC. It is worth noting that the changes made to the Code of Civil Procedure in 2010 are the result of the execution of the instructions of the highest body exercising constitutional control. The use of novelties, as practice has shown, has made it possible to significantly reduce the percentage of illegal and unfounded decisions.

Do you think you are Russian? Were you born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is wrong.

Are you actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian? But do you think that you are a Jew?

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is “imprinting”.

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

Newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time during the first few days, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The technique is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

Throughout your childhood, you wondered why you lived surrounded by strangers. The rare Jews on your way could do whatever they wanted with you, because you were drawn to them, and pushed others away. Yes, even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It’s difficult to understand; the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate it. From that moment, no words or details were preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

System and observer

Let's define a system as an object whose existence is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence through factors independent of the system.

The observer, from the point of view of the system, is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a cause-and-effect relationship with the system.

An internal observer is an object potentially accessible to the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is an object, even potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the system’s event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of “gravitational radiation” penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The cross section of the capture of “gravitational radiation” is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the “shadow” from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the “shadow”.

The capture of “gravitational radiation” by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object opaque to “gravitational radiation”, the capture cross section of which is larger than its geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles separated in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no capture cross section on the trajectories of objects that is large enough to absorb these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

An outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the determining factor of time in the universe is an “external observer,” will slow down exactly twice - the shadow of the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation.” If the determining factor is the “internal observer,” then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.

It is also possible that these hypotheses can be combined in one proportion or another.