Kemerovo, Russian Federation
The article examines the institute of intersectoral analogy and the practice of its use in law enforcement. Having such an important legal instrument as an inter-branch analogy, the courts are able to overcome existing gaps of the procedural regulation. However, according to the author, the use of cross-sectoral analogy is not always correctly understood and evaluated by the courts. To a large extent, this is due to the fact that the criteria or requirements for its application are not defined by the legislator, which does not allow one to realize the full potential inherent to this institution. The author formulates the basic rules for the application of intersectoral analogy, which will contribute to overcoming mistakes in the process of practical implementation of this institution. Turning to the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in recent years, the author concludes that the Supreme judicial body increasingly prefers such a model of unification of procedural rules as the use of intersectoral analogy. The article substantiates the specific circumstances that have led to such an approach. According to the author, the new legal conditions require rethinking the views on the use of intersectoral analogy in the regulation of procedural issues.
civil procedure, arbitral procedure, administrative proceeding, unification of the rules, procedure analogy, analogy of low, law analogy, cross-industry analogy
1. Butnev V. V. Nekotorye voprosy sovershenstvovaniia grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva Rossii [Some Issues of Improving Civil Procedure in Russia]. Gosudarstvo i pravo na rubezhe vekov: Materialy Vseros. konf. [The State and the Right at the Turn of the Century: Proc. All-Russian Conf.]. Moscow, 2001.
2. Sultanov A. R. Zhazhda spravedlivosti: borʹba za sud [Thirst for justice: the struggle for judgment]. Moscow: Statut, 2014, 304.
3. Lomonosova E. Primenenie analogii v grazhdanskom protsesse [Application of analogy in civil proceedings]. Sovetskaia iustitsiia = Soviet justice, no. 22 (1973): 12-13.
4. Zagainova S. K. Sudebnyi pretsedent: problemy pravoprimeneniia [Judicial precedent: problems of law enforcement]. Moscow: Norma, 2002, 176.
5. Zhuikov V. GPK RF i drugie istochniki grazhdanskogo protsessualʹnogo prava [Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and other sources of civil procedural law]. Rossiiskaia iustitsiia = Russian Justice, no. 4 (2003): 10-14.
6. Iarkov V. V. KAS: Traditsii i novelly [The Administrative Court Proceedings Code: Traditions and Innovations]. Iurist = Lawyer, no. 2 (2016): 4-8.
7. Lesnitskaia L. F. Primenenie protsessualʹnykh norm po analogii v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Application of procedural rules by analogy in civil proceedings]. Kommentarii sudebnoi praktiki. Vyp. 13 [Commentary of judicial practice. Iss. 13]. Ed. Iaroshenko K. B. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 2007, 107-116.
8. Murad"ian E. M. Arbitrazhnyi protsess [Arbitration process]. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Tikhomirova M. Iu., 2004, 469.
9. Vikut M. A., Zaitsev I. M. Grazhdanskii protsess Rossii [Russian civil procedure]. Moscow: Iurist", 1999, 384.
10. Nikolaichenko O. V. Vzyskanie sudebnykh raskhodov po grazhdanskomu delu - protsessualʹnaia obiazannostʹ suda [Recovery of legal costs in a civil case - the procedural responsibility of the court]. Iurist = Lawyer, no. 20 (2017): 17-21.
