Contempt of court in the arbitration process: theory and practice
Keywords:
State Arbitration of the USSR, arbitration process, arbitration court, judicial fine, contempt of court, APC of the Russian FederationAbstract
In the article, the object of research is the legal relations of the parties (the court, participants in the proceedings, including their representatives and other persons) arising in the arbitration process. The subject of the study is the theoretical, legal and law enforcement aspects of the manifestation of contempt of court. The choice of the research subject is determined by the presence of a legal gap in the definition of «contempt of court», diverse judicial practice and discussions of scientists about this concept (a list of actions indicating contempt of court). The purpose of the work is to develop theoretical and applied provisions on the subject of research, taking into account current judicial practice. The specific tasks are: to conduct a study of the theory and law enforcement practice of actions indicating contempt of court; to formulate a definition and propose legal ways to resolve this problem. The methodological basis of the research is based on general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction and the method of comparative analysis. The results of the study are presented by the following main conclusions. The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (APC RF) does not disclose the content of the concept of «contempt of court». Chapters 11 and 19 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation indicate only certain contemptuous acts to the court. Law enforcement practice reveals this list of actions in more detail, and therefore it is necessary to introduce the content of the concept of «contempt of court» into Article 119 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, Part 5.1. Making changes, firstly, will discipline the parties in the judicial process, secondly, it will promote transparency of court decisions and uniformity of judicial practice, and thirdly, it will increase the authority of the judiciary.