Possibility of Applying the Category "Good Faith and Abuse of Procedural Rights" to Participants in Disputes Arising from Corporate Legal Relations under the Legislation of the CIS and Neighboring Countries

The existence of once common foundations of the procedural legislation of the CIS and neighboring countries with its subsequent independent development is of interest from the point of view of the analysis of individual procedural institutions. The paper examines the institution of abuse of procedural rights in relation to the category of corporate disputes.

The procedural legislation of the Soviet period did not fix the concept of abuse of procedural law and did not contain its clear criteria for appropriate classification of certain negative cases in the procedural behavior of a participant in a trial in order to suppress such facts. It is with this "legacy" that the countries of the post-Soviet space approached the problem of abuse of procedural rights in the framework of the formation of their own procedural legislation. Attempts to solve this problem often had cardinal differences.

As the analysis of the studied sources shows, the category of "good faith and abuse of procedural rights", in contrast to the Russian procedural legislation, is disclosed in all the examples exclusively within the general part of the procedural laws, which leaves a wide margin of discretion for the law enforcement officer when considering a particular category of disputes. Based on the analysis of the available procedural sources, two constructions of the "good faith — abuse" model were identified. The first one, the "sanctions" model of "good faith-abuse" is presented in most of the procedural sources of the CIS and neighboring countries. The second, "compensatory" model, although singled out separately in the procedural laws, does not disclose the mechanism of compensation for losses by a person who has abused his procedural rights, and therefore seems less effective in terms of protecting the victim from the unfair behavior of his procedural opponent.

1. Valeev DKh. Protsessualnye garantii v ispolnitelnom proizvodstve [Procedural guarantees in enforcement proceedings]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess [Arbitrazh and Civil Procedure]. 2009;6:36-40. (In Russ.)

2. Valeev DKh, Nuriev AG, Shakiryanov RV. Realizatsiya konstitutsionnogo prava na sudebnuyu zashchitu na gosudarstvennykh yazykakh subekta RF po grazhdanskim delam v kontekste vyneseniya resheniya [Implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in the State languages of the subject of the Russian Federation in civil cases in the context of making a decision]. Rossiyskiy sudya [Russian Judge]. 2018;11:6-9. (In Russ.)

3. Valeev DKh, Novikov IA, editors. Grazhdanskie protsessualnye kodeksy stran Sodruzhestva Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv: uchebnoe posobie: v 2 t. [Civil Procedure Codes of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States: A textbook. In 2 vols.]. Moscow: Statut; 2016. Vol. 1: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan. Vol. 2: Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine. (In Russ.)

4. Yudin AV. Zloupotreblenie protsessualnymi pravami v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: avtoref. dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [Abuse of procedural rights in civil proceedings. Author's abstract of Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. St. Petersburg; 2009. (In Russ.)