The paper investigates the legislative innovation of a simplified procedure in civil proceedings. The authors analyze the norms of Chapter 21.1 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which regulate the civil investigation process in a simplified procedure. The article also shows the shortcomings and contradictions in the legal regulation of this institution; the authors draw attention to some problems that may arise during the practical implementation of the procedural norms. In particular, the attention is drawn to the fairly complex system of simplified procedure cases differentiation, with the requirements for which the writ is granted. The legislator has left important practical issues beyond the scope of legal regulation, i.e. the terms of the case in the simplified procedure, confirmation method of sending the documents and objections by parties to each other before the court, as well as the duties and the way of approval of sending documents and objections of one party to the other party before the Court, which casts doubt on the possibility of consideration of civil cases in simplified procedure. According to the authors, the model of appellate review of a judgment in the simplified procedure proposed by legislator needs to be adjusted. The role of a judicial member in a simplified procedure is investigated in the article. The transition to the process in written form not only fails to exclude the involvement of the legal representative in cases of simplified procedure, but also suggests expanding his power, that requires an appropriate legislative solution. Giving an overall positive assessment to the implemented legislative innovations, the authors recognize that the disputed provisions identified in the analysis of norms of Chapter 21.1 of the Civil Practice Act of the Russian Federation do not make it possible to carry out to the full the potential embedded in this institution.
civil procedure, arbitral proceeding, action proceeding, writ proceeding, simplified procedure
