CIVIL PROCEDURAL FORM – GUARANTEE OF
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JUSTICE IN CIVIL CASES
The problem of the justice effectiveness on the whole has not been sufficiently studied in legal science. As regards the effectiveness of justice in civil cases, this gap has been filled in by a detailed monograph by A.V. Tsikhotsky.
The author words the notion of the effectiveness of justice in civil cases: «The effectiveness of justice in civil cases is the capacity (property) of justice as a kind of public activity, carried out in the statutory procedural form, to consider and resolve particular court cases with rendition of lawful, substantiated, and fair rulings, to ensure that under certain conditions socially important objectives are reached. This capacity is characterized by the ratio between the level of objectives actually reached by justice and that established by law».
Characterizing the effectiveness of justice in civil cases, A.V. Tsikhotsky notes that the measure of the justice effectiveness is organically connected with its basic functions. The justice has many of the latter.
It should be specified that justice is one of the basic functions of the court – a judicial authority body.
Apart from justice administration, the court discharges other functions, as well. In particular, it has a pedagogical effect on all those attending the court hearing, announcement of the judgement, facilitates strengthening of lawfulness and prevention of offences by rendering lawful and substantiated acts (judgements, rulings, determinations).
The court studies and sums up the court rulings, develops the main trends of enforcement activities, issues the guidelines as Rulings of the Plenary Sessions of the Supreme Court, discharges other multiple functions.
The efficiency of the judicial activities in justice administration may be evaluated primarily by the extent of observation by courts of the civil procedural form governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
The essence of the civil procedural form currently necessitates new comprehension in connection with the fact that the judicial activities in administration of justice are called to solve, in specific forms, of complicated tasks of construction of a truly jural state with a well-developed jural civil society.
It would be hardly possible to solve these tasks without strengthening a judicial authority institute. And the judicial authority discharges its principal function – administration of justice - being governed by a strictly regulated procedural form.
The issue of the property and essence of the civil procedural form was widely discussed by jurists-scholars in the period of active democratic processes in 60-70ies of the XX-th century.
This is primarily explained by the fact that it is precisely in the 70-ies that the general tendency of the public relations development appeared in the conditions of democratization of social and political institutes, development of constitutional principles of enhancement of legal guarantees of a personality. In order for the theoretical developments not to remain just declarations, many laws and bylaws regulating the activities of various bodies, organizations, officials to protect the infringed rights of individuals and organizations are adopted.
This has made it possible for the jurists-scholars to substantiate the necessity of a uniform procedural form regulating the activities of authorities and officials in various spheres of life of the society, especially in the enforcement sphere.
The impulse for a wide interpretation of the procedural law was given by the monograph «Yuridicheskaya protsessualnaya forma. Teoriya i praktika (Legal Procedural Form. Theory and Practice)» edited by Prof. P.E. Nedbailo and V.M. Gorshenev. The authors ascertained that «there is a procedural form not only in the jurisdictional (law enforcement) sphere of application of the rules of law, but in other spheres, as well… Specific procedural rules are needed, for instance, in the financial, land, collective farm, and other branches of law».
Wide interpretation of the procedural form was noted by P.M. Rabinovich, O.E. Leist, V.A. Yusupov, N.V. Vitruk and others.
Experts in administrative law consecutively defended the view that all the activities of the administrative bodies are carried out in the procedural form, and the rules governing these are those of administrative procedure.
The opinion expressed in the literature is that «every kind of proceedings (criminal, civil, administrative) is the procedure for implementation of the substantive rules of various branches of Soviet law regulated by respective procedural rules».
Later D.N. Bakhrakh asserted that the administrative proceedings are in the same row with «such legal processes as criminal, civil, legislative, budget ones». Such «unification» may be accepted if one disregards that the criminal and civil processes are, in essence, legal proceedings.
V.M. Gorshenev has worded the following definition of the procedural form in view of the general law theory: «The procedural form should be interpreted as an aggregate of uniform requirements to the actions of the proceedings participants aimed at achievement of a certain result».
This definition was reasonably criticized. Thus, A.M. Vasiliev saw in the definition concerned «no specifics of legal components», this procedural form is «impersonal» and can be applied to «any purpose-oriented human activities».
To substantiate his objections, he notes that, first, the advocates of a wide interpretation of the procedural law, when referring to Carl Marx as their ally, fail to note that C. Marx, speaking about correlation between the law and process, meant the procedural form of proceedings!
Second, notes A.M. Vasiliev, if a wide interpretation of the procedural law is accepted, then one should speak about the procedural law of the second, etc., degree.
Third, it would be erroneous to consider any procedure of actions (even legally meaningful) as a procedural form.
Fourth, the procedural form is used not only in any enforcement activities, but also in the court entertaining criminal and civil cases, where additional guarantees and means of protection of the rights, freedoms, interests of the individuals and the State are required.
Fifth, the author is against application of a rigid procedural form to law drafting. The legislator is sovereign and determines itself what law drafting procedure would be the most reasonable.
Summing up his critical remarks, A.M. Vasiliev concludes: «…yet there are no sufficient grounds to consider as a procedural form any procedure for adoption of a legally meaningful decision by public authorities, even if it lacks a complete legal regulation.».
Some of the researchers regarded the procedural law as a synonym of the enforcement procedure.
In confirmation of such synonymy M.S. Strogovich is quoted, who said that «the procedural law is always the law setting forth a certain procedure… this is the law defining the process, i.e. the movement, development of the activities of bodies and individuals».
However, later on, this viewpoint was modified in a collective monograph whose authors were against identification of the term «process» with the term «procedure», and it was stated unequivocally that: «The procedural law, legal process are a law of judicial procedure, legal proceedings».
Nevertheless, the scholars – specialists in various law branches actively developed respective «processes» adequately to the substantive law branch.
Thus, E.M. Akopova substantiating the theory of labor process noted that this was an aggregate of the procedural, process, organizational rules united by inner unity and objectively formed in several law branches (labor, administrative, civil, procedural) and organizations ensuring procedural regulation of labor relations.
Ya. M. Fogel substantiated the existence of pension process, P.S. Nikityuk – inheritance process, I.A. Ikonitskaya – land process, etc.
S.S. Alexeev called such formations the procedural institutes.
Such «unification» of all protection forms found its methodological explanation somewhat later. In particular, V.V. Skitovich presumed that a combination of state and public forms of protection of infringed rights could be explained by the ideological doctrine prevailing in 60-70-ies about a gradual formation of a public state and transfer of the governmental authorities’ functions to public bodies.
The condition of the social and legal conception of that period pushed certain scholars -experts in procedural matters toward the necessity and practical expediency of elaboration of the concept of social and fellow-workers legal proceedings, unification of all «processes» of activities of enforcement agencies differing in organizational and functional principles.
A typical representative of such «unification process» was E.I. Filippov. He suggested a concept of a super branch – procedural protection law.
The procedural protection law, in his opinion, should comprise the following branches: «law of criminal procedure, law of administrative procedure, notarial law, law of economic procedure, law of arbitration procedure, law of social and cooperative procedure, law of social and fellow-workers procedure, law of trade union procedure».
A solid and consecutive position in defending specific features of the civil procedural form was shared by such scholars as N.A. Chechina, D.M. Chechot, A.A. Melnikov, M.S. Shakaryan, A.T. Bonner, V.M. Sherstyuk, and others.
In particular, N.A. Chechina assessed a wide interpretation of the procedural form as «diminishing the procedural law importance», «leveling of the rules of law with simple procedural regulations», «rejection of the criteria accepted by theory for differentiation of law branches ».
In the present-day conditions there arises a necessity to develop on a qualitatively new level a concept of the activities of the court discharging an exceptional function of the judicial authority – justice administration. The principles of legal proceedings – lawfulness, adversary nature, objective truth, optional nature, collective and sole consideration of cases, etc. - have changed significantly.
In this connection the effort taken by some of the present-day scholars to interpret the notion of the procedural form widely seems to be not quite justified.
Thus, A.P. Vershinin suggests to include «a register law» in the procedural law.
V.N. Argunov presumes that «between the participants of notarial proceedings there arise mutual rights and obligations comprising the contents of the notarial procedures or, which is more correct, procedural relations». The opinion expressed in the above quotation that there are notarial procedures is correct.
The general theoretical provisions are supported and developed as applicable to the legal notion of «civil procedural form» by Professor N.A. Chechina. She gives a weighty substantiation of the critical attitude to a wide interpretation of the procedural form as an element of the procedural law. N.A. Chechina’s arguments to assert a concept of an independent civil procedural form typical only of justice, its definition, system, peculiarities, importance are express and persuasive.
In N.A. Chechina’s opinion «the civil procedural form should be interpreted as a system of regulations established by law of the civil procedure that govern the procedure of justice administration, regulations of the activities of those participating in the justice administration process, whose enforcement is secured by the sanctions that can be applied by court».
The characteristic features of the civil procedural form are as follows. First of all, a stable legislative establishment of the civil procedural form resulting in invalidity of any factual actions of any subjects of the proceedings.
A civil procedural form is a system of interrelated and correlated legal relations of the proceedings subjects. The contents of such relations, in our opinion, would be an aggregate of the subjects’ rights and duties fixed in the procedural law (Code of Civil Procedure) and their implementation by way of procedural actions performed in strict compliance with the procedural law.
The circle of the subjects of civil procedural relations is also expressly defined by law, every subject having a procedural denomination (the claimant, applicant, witness, representative, prosecutor, etc.).
The succession of actions to be undertaken by the participants in the proceedings and, whenever necessary, the time periods are established.
The aggregate of the procedural actions determined by the nearest objective makes up the process stage. The succession of the stages is also defined by law.
Procedural means which are used by court in order to discharge its function of justice administration are also strictly regulated. Thus, the proof may be obtained only from the sources specified by law and only using the means listed in the Code of Civil Procedure.
The civil procedural form determines the types, structure, contents of the judicial acts (judgements, determinations, rulings), the requirements to these to be lawful and grounded, binding for all and enforceable.
No less important are the procedural guarantees of observation of the civil procedural form set forth by the civil procedural laws.
This is the aim of the institute of revision of the judicial acts, both those that have come into legal force and those not enforced yet.
The importance to strictly observe the civil procedural form is well traceable in application of sanctions specified in part 2, Art. 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and provided even one of the rules of the procedural law specified in part 2, Art. 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure (paragraphs 1-8) is found to have been infringed, this would constitute an undoubted ground for the annulment of the judicial act.
Somewhat later, N.A. Chechina makes her definition more specific, by noting that the civil procedural form is a system of rules set forth by law and regulating the procedure of justice administration in civil cases, the procedure of activities of everyone involved in the proceedings and of all their actions.
On the whole accepting the above definition, we only suggest a minor specification consisting in that the system of justice rules is established by the procedural law.
It is namely the procedural rather than any other law that forms and sets forth the procedure of justice administration. Frequently the rules of substantive law can be encountered, which have a particular procedural content. However, these rules do not determine the order of proceedings, but only facilitate specification, appending of certain procedural regulations.
This can be exemplified by Art. 17 of the Family Code of RF on inadmissibility of initiation of divorce proceedings by a husband without his wife’s consent during the wife’s pregnancy and within one year following a child’s birth. However, sometimes the courts tolerate the infringement of this provision. The Supreme Court of RF in its Ruling dated 5 November 1998, No. 15 On Enforcement of Law by Courts in Consideration of Divorce Cases provided the guidelines to the courts having pointed out that a judge must refuse to accept the application filed pursuant to para 1, Art. 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and if the application was accepted – to terminate the proceedings in the case in accordance with para 1, Art. 219 of the said Code, as the case is not subject to consideration by the court.
The draft Code of Civil Procedure of 2000 stipulated in para 6, part 1, Art. 137 the return of the application, provided the husband filed a lawsuit seeking divorce without his wife’s consent during her pregnancy and within one year following the birth of a child. Such a decision stipulated by the procedural law is more corresponding to legal consequences, since upon expiry of one year following the birth of a child the applicant (husband) is entitled to file a lawsuit seeking divorce.
Another important aspect of abidance by the civil procedural law in administration of justice by the court was pointed out in part 3, Art. 1 of the draft Code of Civil Procedure of RF of 2000: «The rules of the law of civil procedure contained in other laws should correspond to the provisions of this Code».
In my opinion, an addendum to the effect that «the rules of other laws containing procedural rules, if running contrary to this Code, are subject to no enforcement» will strengthen this important provision even more.
M.A. Gurvich underlined: «The process is intended for the cases of the rule infraction, the pathology of its implementation eliminated in the process of justice administration by restoring the rule concerned. In essence, a civil process is a medicine of the civil relations, and the court in the civil process is a clinic – for treatment and prophylactics».
The procedural form in the framework of which the justice is administered is the most complicated, divaricate, and pedantic of all jurisdictional procedures, - notes a well-known scholar I.L. Petrukhin.
Therefore, the civil procedural form is the court’s activity in administration of justice in civil cases, as well as the activities of other subjects of the proceedings facilitating administration of justice, strictly regulated by rules of law of the civil procedure.
A strict and express nature of the civil procedural form is ensured by its regulation by the branch legislation.
Since the types of proceedings (constitutional, civil, administrative, criminal) were defined in compliance with the Constitution of RF of 1993, whose procedures are followed in administration of justice – one of the principle functions of the court, every type of proceedings, in our opinion, should be regulated by respective branch (remedial) legislation. This would guarantee a constitutional provision about ensuring justice with a respective procedural regulation.
The commentary to the Constitution of RF justly notes that the justice in criminal, civil, and other cases is administered in the procedural form set forth by law. The procedural form in the case concerned is regarded as one of the material characteristics of justice.
In connection with the constitutional provision on the administrative proceedings, one of the acute issues is setting up of administrative courts. The issue of the procedural form of the discharge of their functions by the administrative courts is fairly problematic. On the one part, being the courts of common jurisdiction they can entertain the cases in a procedural form defined by the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other part, there is an opinion that if Art. 1 of the draft Federal Constitutional Law On Federal Administrative Courts in the Russian Federation is strictly followed, «the administration courts cannot altogether entertain the cases referred to their jurisdiction according to the civil procedural rules». In order to eliminate such a paradoxical situation, it is suggested to draft and adopt the Code of Administrative Procedure. It logically follows that the above Code will ensure resolution of administrative cases in the administrative procedural form. On the whole, such prospect of administrative justice formation can be approved. But this would unavoidably entail the change of the structure and contents of the Code of Civil Procedure. Subsection 2 of section II of the current Code of Civil Procedure regulating proceedings in the cases arising from administrative relations (in the draft of 2000 – from public relations) should be excluded. Adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure will be postponed for a fairly long time. But individuals do go to the courts, and the courts do entertain and resolve public disputes in accordance with the civil procedural form and with due regard for the peculiarities of cases arising from public relations.
The most reasonable would be to elaborate a special procedural regulation of initiation, preparation, entertainment and resolution of cases arising from administrative (public) relations in the framework of the Code of Civil Procedure defining administration of justice following the order of civil proceedings as a universal and effective form of protection of the rights, freedom, and interests of the subjects of legal relations protected by law.
The concern about observation of the civil procedural form is caused by the magistrates’ activities. This follows from «liberties» in determination of the procedure for administration of justice by the magistrates committed in the Federal Law On Magistrates in the Russian Federation dated 17 December 1998. In particular, part 2, Art. 1 states: «The magistrates administer justice in the name of the Russian Federation. The procedure of justice administration by magistrates is set forth by a federal law, and as regards administration of justice in cases of administrative offenses, it can be also set by the laws of the subjects of the Russian Federation. And such «right» has not kept everyone waiting for itself. Part 3, Art. 1 of the Law of the Krasnodar Region On Magistrates of the Krasnodar Area repeats the rule of the Federal Law verbatim, specifying: «also is set forth by the laws of the Krasnodar Region».
In my opinion, the above «liberty» which tolerates undermining of a uniform procedure of justice administration only pursuant to the federal laws is inadmissible.
Violation of para «o», Art. 71 of the Russian Constitution setting forth an exclusive competence of federal laws in adoption and amendment of the laws of civil procedure in accordance with which the justice is administered in civil cases, by magistrates included, is apparent.
Such violation should be rectified immediately in order not to create a precedent of neglect of federal regulation of justice administration set forth by the Principal Law of the country in a procedural form irrespective of the category of cases.
Another matter is that the legislator (again, federal) can set forth differentiated procedural forms with due regard for the specifics of certain cases subject to consideration by the court.
However, regulation of peculiarities is a prerogative of the procedural law whose regulation ensures a strict abidance of the courts by the civil procedural form as a guarantee of the effectiveness of justice in civil cases.
 A.V. Tsikhotsky, Teoreticheskiye problemy effectivnosti pravosudiya po grazhdanskim delam (Theoretical Problems of the Effectiveness of Justice in Civil Cases) . Novosibirsk, Nauka, 1997.
 Ditto, p.152.
 Ditto, p.154.
 I.G. Semenov et V.I. Smolyarchuk, Rabota gosudarstvennykh organov po razresheniyu predlozheniy, zayavleniy i zhalob grazhdan (The Work of Public Agencies to Resolve Individuals’ Suggestions, Applications, and Complaints), in Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo, 1968, No.10, p.64-73 ; V.O.Luchin, Protsessualnye normy v sovetskom gosudarstvennom prave (Rules of Procedural Law in the Soviet Public Law) : Abstract from Doctoral Thesis, Voronezh, 1971; A.S. Pigolkin, Teoreticheskie problemy pravovoi deyatelnosti v SSSR (Theoretical Problems of Legal Activities in the USSR) : Abstract from Doctoral Thesis, Moscow, 1972, etc.
 Yuridicheskaya protsessualnaya forma. Teoriya i praktika (Legal Procedural Form. Theory and Practice), ed. by P.E. Nedbailo, Correpsonding Member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and V.M. Gorshenev, Doctor of Law. Moscow, 1976, p.12; N.I. Krasnov, I.A. Ikonitskaya, Protsessualnye voprosy sovetskogo zemelnogo prava (Procedural Issues of Soviet Land Law). Moscow, Nauka, 1975.
 P.M. Rabinovich, Uprochenie zakonnosti – zakonomernost sotsializma (Strengthening of Lawfulness – Regularity of Socialism). Lvov, 1975, pp.246-247.
 O.E. Leist, Teoreticheskie problemy sanktsiy i otvetstvennosti po sovetskomu pravu (Theoretical Problems of Sanctions and Laibility in Soviet Law): Abstract from the Doctoral Thesis. Moscow, 1978, p.17.
 V.A. Yusupov, Pravoprimenitelnaya deyatelnost organov upravleniya (Enforcement Activities of Governing Bodies). Moscow, 1979, pp. 26-27.
 N.V. Vitruk, Osnovy teorii pravovogo, polozheniya lichnosti v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve (Fundamentals of the Theory of Legal Status of a Personality in the Socialist Society). Moscow, Nauka, 1979.
 N.G. Salishcheva, Administrativnyi protsess v SSSR (Administrative Proceedings in the USSR) . Moscow, 1964; V.D. Sorokin, Administrativno-protsessualnoe pravo (Law of Adminisdtrative Procedure) Leningrad, 1976; I.A. Galagan, Administrativnaya otvetstvennost v SSSR. Protsessualnoe regulirovanie (Administrative Liability in the USSR. Procedural Regulation). Voronezh, 1976.
 V.D. Sorokin, Sovetskoe administrativno-protsessualnoe pravo (Soviet Law of Administrative Procedure). Training and Methodical Aid. Leningrad, 1976, p.26
 D.N. Bakhrakh, Administrativnoe pravo (Administrative Law). Moscow, BEK, 1996, pp.153-156.
 V.M. Gorshenev, Priroda i naznachenie protsessualnoi formy v sovetskom prave (The Nature and Designation of the Procedural Form in Soviet Law) in: Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta (Bulletin of the Yaroslavl State University), issue No. 4. Yaroslavl, 1972, p.5; Ditto, Sposoby i organizatsionnye formy pravovogo regulirovaniya v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve (Means and Organizational Forms of Legal Regulation in the Socialist Society). Moscow, 1973, pp.188-220.
 A.M. Vasiliev, O pravoprimenenii i protsessualnom prave (On Enforcement and Procedural Law), in: Problemy sootnosheniya materialnogo i protsessualnogo prava (Problems of Correlation between the Substantive and Procedural Law) - Works of VYuZI, Moscow, 1980, pp.8-10.
 A.M. Vasiliev, Pravovye kategorii. Metodologicheskie aspekty razrabotki sistemy kategoriy teorii prava (Legal Categories. Methodological Aspects of the Development of the Law Theory Categories System). Moscow, 1976, pp.260-262.
 A.I. Kim, Sovetskoe izbiratelnoe pravo (Soviet Election Law). Moscow, 1965, pp.59-61. Ditto, Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost v organizatsionnoi deyatelnosti mestnykh Sovetov deputatov trudyashchikhsya (Socialist Lawfulness in Organizational Activities of the Local Soviets of People’s Deputies). Tomsk, 1961, p.22; O.V. Luchin, Protsessualnye normy v sovetskom gosudarstvennom prave (Procedural Rules in Soviet State Law): Abstract from Doctoral Thesis. Voronezh, 1971, pp.5-11.
 M.S. Strogovich, Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa (The Course of Soviet Criminal Process), vol.1. Moscow, Nauka, 1968, pp.44-45.
 N.N. Polyansky, M.S. Strogovich, V.M. Savitsky, A.A. Melnikov, Problemy sudebnogo prava (Problems of Judicial Law). Moscow, Nauka, 1983, p.31.
 E.M. Akopova, O ponyatii trudovogo protsessa (On Definition of Labor Process), in: Problemy trudovogo prava i prava sotsialnogo obespecheniya (Problems of Labor Law and Social Security Law). Moscow, 1975, p.163.
 Ya.M. Fogel, Protsessualnye otnosheniya v pensionnom obespechenii (Procedural Relations in Pension Security). Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1971, No. 8.
 P.S. Nikityuk, Nasledstvennoe pravo i nasledstvennyi protsess (problemy teorii i praktiki) (Right of Inheritance and Inheritance Process (Problems of Theory and Practice). Kishinev, 1973, pp.1164-170.
 N.I. Krasnov, I.A. Ikonitskaya, Protsessualnye voprosy sovetskogo zemelnogo prava (Procedural Issues of Soviet Land Law). Moscow, Nauka, 1975.
 S.S. Alexeev, Struktura sovetskogo prava (Structure of Soviet Law). Moscow, 1975, p.197.
 V.V. Skitovich, Nekotorye metodologicheskie problemy issledovaniya grazhdanskogo prava i protsessa (Certain Methodological Research Problems of Civil Law and Process) in: Metodologicheskie problemy pravovedeniya (Methodological Juridical Problems) ed. by Prof. M.N. Marchenko. Moscow, MGU, 1994, pp.120-121.
 E.I. Dulimov, Rassmotrenie grazhdanskikh del tovarishcheskimi sudami (Civil Cases Entertainment by a Court of Fellow-Workers). Abstract from Docvtoral Thesis, Saratov, 1971
 E.I. Filippov, O sootnoshenii grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva i obshchestvenno-tovarishcheskoi formy zashchity prava (On Correlation Between Civil Proceedings and Social and Fellow-Workers Form of Right Protection), in: Voprosy razvitiya i zashchity prav grazhdan (Issues of Individuals’ Rights Development and Protection). Kalinin, 1977, p.138; Ditto, Obshchestvenno-tovarishcheskoe sudoproizvodstvo v SSSR (Social and Fellow-Workers Proceedings in the USSR). Rostov-on-Don, 1979, pp.47-50; Ditto, Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya obshchestvenno-tovarishcheskogo sudoproizvodstva v SSSR (Problems of Legal Regulation of Social and Fellow-Workers Proceedings in the USSR). Abstract from Doctoral Thesis. Sverdlovsk, 1981, p.12
 N.A. Chechina, Normy grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava i ikh primenenie (Rules of the Law of Civil Procedure and Their Application). Abstract from Doctoral Thesis. Leningrad, 1965, p.14; Ditto, Osnovnye napravleniya razvitiya grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava (Main Trends of Development of the Law of Civil Procedure), in: Problemy zashchity subjektivhykh prav i sovetskoe sudoproizvodstvo (Problems of Subjective Rights Protection and Soviet Civil Proceedings). Yaroslavl, 1978, pp.115-116.
 D.M. Chechot, Neiskovye proizvodstva (Ex Parte Proceedings). Moscow, 1974; Ditto, Administrativnaya yustitsiya (Administrative Justice). Leningrad, 1973, pp. 52. 79.
 A.A. Melnikov, Grazhdanskiy protsessualnyi zakon (Law of Civil Procedure). Moscow, Nauka, 1969, pp.17-21.
 M.S. Shakaryan, A.K. Sergun, K voprosu o teorii tak nazyvaemoi «yuridicheskoi protsessualnoi formy» (On the Issue of the So-Called «Legal Procedural Form»), in Works of VYuZI, Problemy sootnosheniya metarialnogo i protsessualnogo prava (Problems of Correlation Between Substantive and Procedural Law), ed. by Prof. M.S. Shakaryan. Moscow, 1980, pp.61-86.
 A.T. Bonner, Proizvodstvo po delam, voznikayushchim iz administrativno-pravovykh otnosheniy (Proceedings in the Cases Arising from Administrative Relations): Abstract from Doctoral Thesis. Moscow, 1966, pp.5-7
 V.M. Sherstyuk, Sistema sovetskogo grazhdanskogo rpotsessualnogo prava (System of Soviet Law of Civil Procedure). Moscow, 1989, pp.72-74.
 N.A. Chechina, Osnovnye napravleniya razvitiya grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava (Main Trends of Development of the Law of Civil Procedure). Problemy zashchity subjektivnykh prav i sovetskoe grazhdanskoe sudoproizvodstvo (Problems of Subjective Rights Protection and Soviet Civil Proceedings), issue No. 3. Yaroslavl, 1978, p.112.
 A.P. Vershinin, Sposoby zashchity grazhdanskikh prav (Civil Rights Protection Ways). Abstract from Doctoral Thesis in the form of a report. St.Petersburg, 1998.
Commentary to the Fundamentals of Laws of the Russian Federation on Notariat ed. by V.N. Argunov. Moscow, 1996, p.6.
 N.A. Chechina, Sudebnaya zashchita i konstitutsionnye printsipy grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava (Judicial Protection and Constitutional Principles of the Law of Civil Procedure). VYuZI Works: Problemy sootnosheniya meterialnogo i protsessualnogo prava (Problems of Correlation between Substantive and Procedural Laws). Moscow, 1980, p.42.
 N.A. Chechina, Osnovnye napravleniya razvitiya nauki sovetskogo grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo para (Main Trends of Development of the Science of the Soviet Law of Civil Procedure). Moscow, 1987, p.52.
 Bulletin of the Supreme Court of RF. 1998, No.1, p.6
 The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (draft), 1998, p.36
 The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (draft), 1998, p.2
 M.A. Gurvich, O primenenii sovetskim sudom grazhdanskikh zakonov (On Application of Civil Laws by the Soviet Court). Schoraly notes of VYuZI, issue No.16. Moscow, 1976, p.265.
 I.L. Petrukhin, Pravosudie: vremya reform (Justice: Time of Reforms). Moscow, 1991, p. 97
 The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Commentary. Moscow, 1994, pp.499-500.
 V. Kryazhkov, Yu. Starilov, Administrativnye sudy: kakimi im byt? (Administrative Courts: What These Should Be?) in: Rossiyskaya Yustitsiya (Russian Justice), 2001, No. 1, p.p.18,19.