Providing measures in the arbitration process of the Russian Federation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Abstract work

Providing measures in the arbitration process of the Russian Federation

The Institute of providing measures in arbitration process continues to attract rapt attention of scientists and jurists. Let's specify the most essential reasons: first, in spite of abundance of scientific publication [1], legal nature оf providing measures still remains disputable [2];

second, notwithstanding absolutely determined position of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation on the considered question, which was repeatedly brought to judges the uniform practice of realization of norms of the given institute has not been formed. In this connection there exist separate facts of rough violation of the law at application of providing measures [4];

Third, active application of providing measures is the main "rader way" [5], and consequently - the ground for direction of the personal cases of a number of judge for consideration of the Qualification board of judges.

Not pretending on exhausting covering of the given question, we shall try to analyze separate aspects of the above specified problem.

In our opinion the main problem is the legal nature of providing measures and its reflection in the modern legislation [6].

The fact is, the later does not give the legal determination of the given measures. Searching for it leads to generalizations of judicial activities, which taking the form of resolutions of the Plenums of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation, in accordance with item 2 Article 13 of the Federal Constitutional Law from April 28, 1995 "About courts of arbitration in the Russian Federation", become compulsory for courts of arbitration of the Russian Federation [7].

Thus, item 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts " contains the position, according to which providing measure are "speed means of protection" [8].

The Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language of S.I.Ozhegov in the wording of N.Yu.Shvedova characterizes the word "facility", as: 1.The way for achievement of something.Simple.To achieve something by all means. All means are good. 2. The instrument (the subject, collection of adjustments) for realization of any activity. Means of transportation. The facilities wired. 3. Medicine, subject necessary at treatment, as well as the subject of make-up . medicines for cough. Dressing facilities. Make-up facilities. 4. Money, credits, circulating assets. To release facilities for something. 5. State, a person with facilities. [9].

The doctrine interpretation defines "protection of the right", as reaction on fact of non-execution of duties and infringement of the right [10]. Thus, in the considered context, high judicial instance of our country, which supervises over practice of settlement of commercial dispute, sees in the providing measures the operative (emergency) way of protection of the infringed or disputed right.

Meantime, the domestic theory of the right, both material, and procedural, and subsequently the legislator when considering and regulating questions, connected with protection of subjective rights uses, as a rule, the term "measure", instead of "facility" [11].

The above mentioned explanatory dictionary of the Russian language of S.I.Ozhegov in the wording of N.Yu.Shvedova explaining the sense and contents of the word "measure", defines it as: 1. The unit of measure. Square measures. Measure of length. Measure of weight. 2. The border, the limit of manifestation of something. To know the measure. The feeling of the measure. Without measure (much). Above measure (too). In measure (just). 3. The facility for realization of something, activity. The precautionary measure. The firm measures. To take necessary measures. 4. The old Russian unit of capacities of dry measures. In full measure -. Fully satisfied. While. The time of arrival of new information, the situation clears up. At least. measure what, pretext with sort. p. - in accordance with than-n., complying with than-n. [12].

Etymology of the word "measure" shows that on its semantic importance it embraces the contents of the word "facility". Using the word "measure" at regulation of relations, connected with ensuring of the suit, allows the legislator to solve, at minimum two problems. First, it defines the facility (ways) of efficient influence on the defendant; secondly, limits the frames (sets the limit) of the forced influence on the given person. The later circumstance is extremely important for protection of the rights of the sides on the case, in respect of which there have been admitted providing measures, as well as for realization of the principle of the equality sides in the arbitration process.

The above stated allows to confirm that interpretation of providing measures, contained in item 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court Of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts", groundlessly reduces the contents of the considered term. Moreover, - the literal interpretation of the above specified position by the separate judges objectively creates preconditions for violation by courts of rights and legal interest of the defendant. The reasons are: 1). If the providing measure is the means of protection, it means that the offender stands in court [13]; 2). If the offender stands in court the court can and must apply to him both sanctions, and measures of responsibility. The following conclusion arises: whether the providing measure is the sanction for offense committed!?! And this is in conditions, when all proofs are not examined, and the fact of infringement of the right by court is not actually installed and the decision of the case is not made!

Such approach objectively contradicts the tasks, put in the process of preparation of the current wording of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. Let's remind that in introduction to one of the most authoritative commentaries of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation professor V.F. Yakovlev noted: "One of the tasks, put at preparation of the new of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation is solved, it is the providing of efficient and operative protection of rights and legal interest of businessmen and other persons, applying to court of arbitration. These measures are; the measures of ensuring the suit, including preliminary providing measures. They are necessary to do for real performance of the judicial decision. The specified measures have the special nature, which is stipulated in Chapter 8 of the Code " [14].

We should note that the general theory of the right, and subsequently the civilistic science, considering the question about application of sanction, clearly delimits measures of protection, measures of responsibility. Thus, in 1955 in his famous work, devoted to the civil-legal responsibility, O.S.Yoffe wrote: "Responsibility is the sanction for the offense, but sanction does not always mean responsibility" [15]. And professor O.S.Yoffe understood "the sanction as the enforcement measure grounded on the law" [16].

Considering the legal nature of sanctions in the civil law, O.A.Krasavchikov noted: "The civil-legal sanction should be understood as established by the law measure property or other legal unbeneficial for the person consequences, applied to him in the event of non-observance of instructions pof the law, non-execution of the taken obligations, causing harm or presence of other grounds, provided by the law "[17]. Herewith he classified civil-legal, first of all,- property sanctions on the branch nature as material-legal and procedural-legal[18].

We consider, that determining the legal nature of providing measures in the text of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts ", the developers have called attention only to the material-legal side of the considered by us problem, undeservedly having forgotten the procedural side.

In this connection, the imperative necessity is consideration of providing measures applied in the arbitration process, as the variety of procedural sanction. The main purpose of the given sanctions is protection (provision) [19] rights, for which protection the side has applied to court. It is obvious that on its essential features the given sanctions have the economic nature.

It is notable that, developing the teaching of O.A. Krasavchikov about property sanctions in the civil law, V.L. Slesarev absolutely validly has introduced the term: "economic sanctions". He understands economic sanction as the measures of economic responsibility applied to enterprises (associations) as for violation of general economic needs, as well as the concrete self-supporting interests of partners on economic relations [20]. It is obvious that positions of the above mentioned work embrace only materially-legal aspect of the problem considered by us in the direction of covering the mechanism of civil-legal responsibility.

Meantime, introducing providing measures, court of arbitration influences, first p of all, the property sphere of the defendant on suit, which is not satisfied by court. It is obvious that considered by us in the procedural aspect measures, can not carry out the function of protection, since the court has not established yet the fact of infringement of the right , but only presumes its existence. In this connection, providing measures, as procedural-legal phenomena, can be not considered as the means of protection. They are procedural economic sanctions, introduced by court for protection of the right, which on termination of consideration of the case can be declared violated.

Considered in the procedural-legal plane, providing measures, being by its legal nature neither, measures of protection nor measures of responsibility, however, are always connected with application of the state enforcement. At their realization property, and non property sphere of the defendant has considerable damage. Moreover, according to the materials of activities not all suits on which court has taken providing measures, are subsequently satisfied by the court [21]. In this case there arises the question: whose right court protects, as well as the problem of indemnifying the losses and responsibility not only of the defendant, but also of the concrete judge.

Taking the decision about application of providing measures, each judge should take into account the above stated circumstances. More he is obliged to it by the above mentioned item 10 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts ": "In the definition about application of providing m of validity of arguments of the applicant about the necessity of taking of providing measures.

In this connection, at estimation of arguments of the applicant in accordance with Part 2 Article 90 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation courts of arbitration should take into account:

- reason and validity of requirements of the applicant about application of providing measures;

- probability of causing significant damage to the applicant in the event of rejection of providing measures;

- ensuring the balance of interests of the sides " [22].

It is important to take into account all these requirements since taking of providing measures occurs in condition, when the circumstances of the case are not examined by court, the verdict on the case is not stated, and, consequently, the question about responsibility of the person, on which the court has already entrusted the procedural sanction, is not settled.

These circumstances have been repeatedly specified by V.F.Yakovlev, - first chairman of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation, one of the founders of the system of arbitration justice in Russia: "Providing measures, and particularly preliminary, should be applied in the strict correspondence purposes and tasks, determined by the law. It is impossible to allow repetition of mistakes of the past, when norms of the procedural law were applied for the purpose of illegal owning someone's property or removal rival" [23]. The discovered by us error in interpretation of norms of Chapters 8 of the Arbitration procedural Code of the Russian Federation, is not single. In this connection it is wrong to make absolutely free, in our opinion, interpretation of high judicial instance of Article 99 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, contained in item 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts", since, in our opinion, they directly contradict the law and the doctrine of the procedural law. Made by us analysis of item 4 Article 99 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation shows: taking of preliminary providing measures is impossible without counter provision, taking into account that they provide not the suit, but property interests of the applicant. The doctrine interpretation of the specified norm says the same.

Thus, the famous journalist V.V.Yarkov in his commentary to the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation notes: "Parts 3 and 4 (article 99 of the Arbitration procedural Code of the Russian Federation) formulate conditions of satisfaction of the statement about provision of property interests. According to the positions of the Arbitration procedural Code of the Russian Federation they are: competence and requirements of court of arbitration, which the applicant applies to provide; presenting the statement on the appropriate jurisdiction; entering counter provision on the part of the applicant; presenting proofs testifying impossibility in the future to perform the judicial act of court of arbitration after starting the arbitration process, about the necessity to prevent the significant damage to the applicant; the proportion of the providing measures to the requirement of the applicant" [24].

At the same time, the wording of item 4 Article 99 of the Arbitration procedural Code of the Russian Federation has objectively obliged the high judicial instance to give the official interpretation of the given norm, which has been taken from the procedural law of Germany. Thus , in accordance with item 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the High Court of Arbitration of the Russian Federation No. 55 from October 12, 2006 "About application of providing measures by courts": "In the event if the proofs, presented by the applicant, confirm presence of the grounds of application of providing measures, provided by Part 2 Article 90 of Arbitration of the Russian Federation, not presenting by the applicant of counter provision at presenting the statement about providing measure, including preliminary providing measures, can not serve the ground for refusal in application of such measures". legal russian arbitration law

Commenting this position, we want to say the following: lately there have appeared a number of very interesting and very cognitive work, devoted to judicial law making [25].Actually, applied for a long period of time in the countries of English Saxon system of the law the precedents and other continental-legal models in industrially developed countries have shown their high efficiency and have played important role in formation of the stable law and order. The attempts of borrowing of "overseas" legal institutes have already taken place in the modern Russian history, but, as a rule, they ended unsuccessfully [26]. Undertaking false attempts of their introduction, we constantly forget that our legal system has its own traditions, features, system of sources and forms. The blind copying of foreign, for example, very close to us on spirit and efficient, law positions of the German law already creates such misbalance in modern domestic system of the legal regulation that it makes great harm. In this connection it is more motivating the all-round studying of the logics of doctrine positions, of the Russian procedural law.

In conclusion, we should say a few words terminology. In our opinion, there exist, as minimum, two main approaches to understanding of the term "providing measure": procedural-legal and material-legal. From positions of the first approach it is an important institute of the procedural law, within the framework of which court realizes or does not realize the sanction, having economic contents and protective nature; from positions of the second approach it is - materially-legal measure of protection of the infringed subjective right, which takes the applicant applying to the court of arbitration.

The literature and notes

1. По данным СПС «Консультант Плюс» только за период с 1995 по 06. 2008 г.г. в центральной юридической литературе проблема обеспечительных мер в гражданском судопроизводстве подвергалась анализу в 116 источниках (научные статьи, монографии, комментарии законодательства).

2. Обзор точек зрения по данной проблеме см., в частности: Юсупов Т.Б. Обеспечение иска в арбитражном и гражданском процессе.- М., 2006.С.С. 16-26.

3. Анализ деятельности ВАС РФ по рассматриваемому вопросу показывает, что в период с 1993 по 2008 г.г. надзорная инстанция подготовила не менее 12 инструктивных указаний в форме информационных писем, обзоров практики и постановлений Пленумов, посвященных применению арбитражными судами обеспечительных мер. Лейтмотив этих указаний - в знаменитой фразе первого председателя ВАС РФ проф. Яковлева В.Ф.: «Обеспечительные меры - это, с одной стороны, очень эффективный способ защиты прав и интересов сторон, но, с другой стороны,- это и возможность злоупотребления процессуальными правами с целью нанесения серьезного экономического ущерба своим конкурентам».- Яковлев В.Ф. «Об итогах работы арбитражных судов в 2003 году и основных задачах на 2004 год. // Вестник ВАС .РФ.2004.№4.С.8

4. Так, например, судья арбитражного суда субъекта Федерации, входящего в Дальневосточный округ, Ш. в 2006г. ввел обеспечительные меры, которые привели к коллапсу предпринимательской деятельности одного из московских заводов (у завода было арестовано все движимое и недвижимое имущество, находящееся не на Дальнем Востоке, а в Москве и Подмосковье. Им также был наложен запрет на проведение собраний ОАО и распоряжение его акциями. Только своевременное вмешательство кассационной инстанции позволило прекратить эту откровенно неправосудную деятельность (См.: Постановление ФАС ДВО от 9.03.07. по делу №Ф03-А80/07-1/318.- ИПС «Консультант Плюс»). Другой крайностью рассматриваемого процесса является то, что даже при наличии встречного обеспечения и очевидных основаниях в обеспечительных мерах судьи арбитражных судов, входящих в Московский округ, по таким заявлениям, в основном, отказывают.

5. См. подробнее: Ионцев М.Г. Корпоративные захваты: слияния, поглощения, гринмэйл.-М.,2006.С.С.112-120.

6. В этой связи перспективным направлением научных исследований нам представляется изучение правовой природы потестативных правомочий, которые реализуются участниками гражданско-процессуальных правоотношений при разрешении вопроса о применении обеспечительных мер в арбитражном процессе. Этого анализа мы, к сожалению, не обнаруживаем в работах современных ученых-процессуалистов. О правовой природе потестативных правомочий см. подробнее: Гурвич МА. Структура и движение гражданского процессуального правоотношения. // Труды ВЮЗИ.Т.38 Вопросы науки советского гражданского процессуального права.-М.,1975.С.С.4-8. Здесь мы рассматриваем законодательство в узком смысле слова, понимая под ним только закон, как акт высшей юридической силы.

7. СЗ РФ", 1995, N 18, ст. 1589.

8. Вестник ВАС РФ", 2006, N 12.

9. Ожегов С.И. Словарь русского языка.М.,1988.С. 621.

10. См. подробнее: Витрук Н.В. Общая теория юридической ответственности. М,2008.С.77.

11. Комментируя ст.12 ГК РФ, проф.Сергеев А.П., в частности, разделяет все способы защиты гражданских прав на меры защиты и меры ответственности. См. подробнее: Комментарий к ГК РФ Ч.1(постатейный). Под ред. Н.Д.Егорова, А.П.Сергеева.- М.,2005.С.35.

12. См.: Ожегов С.И. Указ.Соч. С.280.

13. Доктринальное толкование термина «защита права», как мы уже отмечали выше, и справедливо указывает Н.В.Витрук, - является реакцией на факт невыполнения обязанностей и нарушения права.

14. Комментарий к АПК РФ / Под ред. В.Ф.Яковлева, М.К.Юкова.-М.,2003.С.4-5.

15. См.: Иоффе О.С. Ответственность по советскому гражданскому праву. Л.,1955.С.8.

16. См.: Иоффе О.С. Обязательственное право.М.,1975.С.95.

17. См.: Красавчиков О.А. «Ответственность, меры защиты и санкции в советском гражданском праве» // Категории науки гражданского права. Избранные труды: в 2 т.Т.2. М.,2005.С.264.

18. Там же: С.267.

19. В юридической литературе термины «охрана» и «обеспечение» субъективных прав нередко рассматриваются как синонимы. Подробнее см.: Белов В.А. Гражданское право. Общая и особенная части.-М., 2003.С.397.

20. См.: Слесарев В.Л. Экономические санкции в советском гражданском праве. Красноярск.,1989.С.13.

21. В приведенном нами выше примере необоснованного введения обеспечительных мер на Дальнем Востоке арбитражные суды отказали по всем искам ООО к ОАО.

22. Вестник ВАС РФ", 2006, N 12.

23. Комментарий к АПК РФ / Под ред. В.Ф.Яковлева, М.К.Юкова.-М.,2003.С.5.

Размещено на Allbest.ru