The paper analyzes how appellate courts review judicial decisions issued under simplified procedural frameworks, identifying current challenges, gaps in legal regulation, and prospects for the development of electronic case resolution procedures. It demonstrates that simplified proceedings constitute a self-sufficient and necessary progressive form of expedited adjudication of civil and other private law cases, characterized by clear factual circumstances and a straightforward evidentiary process. The effectiveness and necessity of simplified proceedings are substantiated through their key advantages: reducing court caseloads and shortening the time required for case resolution, including the period for a judgment to become final and enforceable; promoting procedural economy in terms of time and financial resources for the parties; and advancing legal techniques, procedural mechanisms, and e-justice. The study further establishes that, as a means of optimizing civil procedure, simplified proceedings cannot entail a curtailed application of the fundamental principles of civil litigation. In other words, courts may not deprive the rules governing the submission of evidence in simplified proceedings of the guarantees of adversarial process, nor may they deny the principle of transparency in the publication of judicial decisions. In this regard, further optimization of the rules governing simplified proceedings — both at the trial and appellate levels — must respond to contemporary social and legal demands. The authors conclude that there is a need to further develop, refine, and streamline the simplified model within appellate proceedings.