The article analyzes the issue of the principle of objective truth in modern legal proceedings. The author analyzes the arguments of the opponents of this principle and its supporters. Failure to establish true knowledge of the facts when considering each case does not mean the absence of that principle. The civil procedure, the whole set of rules is aimed at establishing true knowledge about the facts, if there is a desire for this from interested parties. Without such rules, judicial activity loses its significance as the highest form of protection of rights.

The active reform of civil procedural law in the twenty-first century has brought to the forefront the problem of the subject matter of its legal regulation. The civilistic procedure as a social phenomenon born of centuries of experience returns to its historical paradigm: actio habere — ius habere. According to the author, the basis of the subject matter of civilistic procedural law is a civilistic process in its ontological sense; the subject of legal regulation also includes relations not in the civilistic form of procedural procedure, but forming an integral part of civilistic legal proceedings; the subject of civilistic procedural law is also relations not regulated by specific rules of procedural law, but by analogy of law and analogy of lex. The qualitative transformation of the subject of civilistic procedural law is due to the modern regularities of the civilistic process: its materialization, internationalization and constitutionalization; its procedural development as the man instrument for internal and external harmonization.

The article deals with the formation of the subject of legal regulation of civil, arbitration, administrative procedural law from 1864 to the present. Trends in a narrow and broad understanding of the subject of legal regulation, unification and differentiation of law in different time periods.The specifics of considering cases of a public law nature in courts of general jurisdiction (according to the rules stipulated by the CAS RF and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the RF) and in arbitration courts on the basis of the application of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to all types of legal proceedings. Particular issues in the definition of the subject of procedural law are touched upon: place in the system of the law of enforcement proceedings, proceedings for bringing to administrative responsibility, the theory of judicial law, etc. A definition of the subject of legal regulation is given in relation to three procedural branches of law: civil, arbitration, administrative procedural law, in which the unity of the body, considering cases (the court), and the procedural form is seen as decisive.

The article considers the issue whether the relations developing in enforcement proceedings are included in the subject of civil procedural law. The important practical importance of the correct definition of the subject of the industry is indicated. The views of Professor A. K. Sergun on the nature of relations arising in connection with the enforcement of acts of jurisdictional bodies are considered. The author agrees with the position that the enforcement of court decisions is the final stage of civil proceedings, and the relations arising in enforcement proceedings are regulated by the branch of civil procedural law. A critical assessment is given to the arguments of supporters of the separation of relations arising from the compulsory execution of acts of jurisdictional bodies from the subject of civil procedural law. It is concluded that heterogeneous social relations can be united in the subject of the industry if it is practically justified by the need existing in society for their qualitatively peculiar, built on uniform principles of regulatory regulation.

The article analyzes the unique properties of arbitration proceedings that integrate civil and criminal types of processes. Implemented in the APC the possibility of joint consideration in arbitration proceedings of claims for bringing to administrative responsibility together with other requirements, in the author’s opinion, proves the fundamental possibility of joint consideration in this legal proceeding of an economic dispute and a criminal case arising from it, which will exclude the possibility of obtaining in the framework of criminal proceedings a different result of resolving an economic dispute than that which can be achieved by applying to an arbitration court.

Trust in the judiciary is an important factor in stability in society and the state. The level of such trust depends, among other things, on the procedural component. The essence of the process and its ideological basis are determined by the system of principles enshrined in the law. The most important principles of legal proceedings are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Over the past thirty years, the reform of legislation has led to significant changes in the system of principles of procedural law. Some principles have disappeared, others have been significantly modified. This led to the loss of the process of its democracy. As a result, legal proceedings cannot effectively exercise their stabilizing function in society. The author sees the solution to the problem in the exact and strict observance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the reform of legislation in accordance with the goals of legal proceedings established by law.

In the article, the author analyzes the evolution of the principles of the Russian civil procedure in recent times. It is stated that many provisions of procedural legislation that were considered principles have now lost their significance, have changed or are missing. This may mean a qualitative change in the process, in many ways the loss of its essence. This is especially evident in the example of writ proceedings. Unlike some scientists, the author considers this type of proceedings in fact to be legal proceedings and justice, demonstrating the result of disregard for the principles of justice, degradation of the rules of court proceedings. The author discusses how the legal community can convey their concerns about this to the legislator. The author expresses hope for the restoration of the significance of the principles of the process. Hope is based on the idea of the cyclical evolution of principles and on healthy conservatism as a direction in politics.

The article analyzes the legal policy of the countries of the Council of Europe in the field of the formation and subsequent implementation of new mechanisms for online dispute resolution in civil and administrative proceedings. In this regard, the guidelines for the use of such mechanisms (which are set out in the relevant Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe) are discussed in detail in the field of access to justice, equality of arms, evidence and evidence, trial and informed decision, as well as the right to review it. ... Attention is focused on the need to ensure the compatibility of such mechanisms with the key principles of a fair trial and effective remedies set out in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the principles of publicity, transparency, directness, oral hearing and equality of persons involved in a case.

A separate place is given to the problem of using online dispute resolution mechanisms in Russian civil and administrative proceedings. It is noted that today the domestic legislator, as part of the development of its own legal policy agenda, increasingly integrates innovative digital communication methods into the activities of the subjects of procedural legal relations. In particular, in the near future, along with video conferencing, the legislator will allow courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction to use web conferencing as an authentic technology for organizing online meetings and collaboration in real time via the Internet. All this creates a fertile ground for borrowing the positive world experience of introducing the latest mechanisms for online resolution of civil and administrative cases by the justice authorities, taking into account the inviolability of high standards of a fair trial.

The author, proceeding from the fact that specialization of civil procedural law in the Russian is set by the invariable perspective of his action for the administration of justice and protection of rights in civil cases, and the claimant legal proceedings is his classic “image” in action in accordance with the procedural code, refers to the characteristics of certain phenomena of procedural law and the specifics of their cognition, when they coexist and interact with the phenomena of material law, through the context of the principle of dispositivity, when specifying the scope of its action and content as the legal basis of legal proceedings, the leading element of which is the right of access to court, in turn, its universal form is the right to filing a claim. It is indicatively emphasized that the characteristic of the legal basis of legal proceedings in the composition of the reducible phenomena is not limited to the phenomena of procedural-legal nature, requiring special attention to the cognitive problem of the connection of legal proceedings with the phenomena of the material-legal order.

The article discusses the problems of direct cognition by the court of the circumstances of the case. Arguments are proposed for solving the issue of procedural limitations of the court in the knowledge of facts directly. It was also proposed to amend Art. 157 CCP, Art. 10 of the CAP, securing the right of the court to establish facts through their direct knowledge.

The article also discusses the question of whether elusive circumstances can have a procedural significance in the formation of an internal judicial conviction. Turning to the latest technological solutions may present such an opportunity. The use of IT in this direction brings the judicial conviction out of the dark zone, turning the elusive inner conviction into evidentiary facts, with which the judge can justify his trust or distrust of a witness, a party, or a third party.

The article deals with the problems of ensuring the implementation of the principle of competitiveness in civil and administrative proceedings. Various means of achieving competitiveness in civil and administrative proceedings are based on the largely unjustified and arbitrary classification of similar cases in which a citizen opposes public bodies, to administrative or civil. A more consistent delimitation of the named categories of cases and the creation of a system of increased guarantees of competition in their consideration in the framework of civil proceedings are proposed.

The right to be heard is considered as the fundamental idea of modern Russian civil procedural law, which pervades all its stages. The content of the principle “the right to be heard” is considered as a set of procedural guarantees that ensure the implementation of the parties to be heard. The peculiarities of implementation of guarantees of the right to be heard in the small claims procedure and in e-justice filing are studied.

The article offers an analysis of individual restrictions on the reform (transformation) of civil proceedings. Its identity is called as such restrictions. The possibility of applying some, in relation to civil procedural law, new and unusual, terms that sounded at the International Conference “Kutafin Readings” on November 24—26, 2021 (“red flags”, “genetic material”) is being investigated. The importance of determining the limitations of reforming the process of judicial protection of civil rights, which cannot be exceeded, is noted.It is proposed to do this clearly, and not only in outline, not with “flags”, but with a conditional “red ribbon” along the perimeter of the “genetic code” of civil procedural law. An assessment of the solution to the problem of identity in modern Russian jurisprudence in relation to civil procedural science is given. Emphasis is placed on the modeling of legal regulation. It is indicated that the process of convergence of the procedural form of Russia and the European Union in the 90s of the twentieth century at that time was progressive. Now the priority goal of scientific and legal research should be the harmonization of norms in the direction of their internal and external compatibility, while preserving the identity of the state’s procedural norms, which allows them to interact with global ones on equal terms.

The article describes the characteristics of civil procedural legal relations in the Russian civil process. The analysis of the theoretical foundations of the construction of models of civil procedure, the relationship between its participants in common law countries, in Germany and France. The author believes that as a result of borrowing the institute of disclosure of evidence from a foreign process, a new type of procedural relations arising between participants in the process without the participation of the court is fixed in the civil procedural legislation of Russia. It is noted that this is caused by the objective processes of globalization and unification in the world, as well as the political and economic transformations taking place inside Russia, which inevitably have an impact on the civil process. The article substantiates the need to return to the theoretical understanding of the views on civil procedural legal relations established in the doctrine of procedural law.

The article analyzes some features of interim measures in corporate disputes. The author The author considers the need to establish some special rules for considering an application for securing a claim and proposes some of amendments to Article 225.6 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, dedicated to interim measures in corporate disputes.

The article examines the institutions of civil procedural law, in which, according to the author, it is possible and necessary to use distributed ledger technology (blockchain technology). The author argues that the technology is applicable not only for private legal purposes, but can signifi -cantly change a number of familiar rules of legal proceedings. In particular, the technology of distributed registers can change the procedural guarantees of the independence of state judges, more often involve active citizens in the administration of justice, change the system for reviewing court decisions, contribute to the unification of judicial practice, and reduce the judicial burden on judges. The author also sees the possible benefits of the technology for cases, the making of decisions on which in the future can be implemented using artificial intelligence and machine data analysis. Thus, subject to the correct use of blockchain technology, the state will be able to ensure the modification of those guarantees of justice that are currently considered poorly implemented or unreliable, including due to the development of digital technologies.

The article analyzes the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were set out at the 2015 United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development. The article provides a comparative analysis of the Millennium Development Goals and SDGs in the context of the efforts of the UN General Assembly in the field of sustainable development. The strengthening of integration within the SDGs of all three components of sustainable development: economic, social, environmental. The emphasis is placed on the environmental aspects of the SDGs and their role both in approving the concept of sustainable development, prerequisites for filling it with specific normative content, and their significance for the development of ESG principles. Taking into account the increasing role of business in the implementation of the concept of sustainable development, the article pays attention to the Principles of Responsible Investment developed by a group of 20 large investors from various countries on the basis of the UN Global Compact. It is concluded that, although the ESG principles are based on the concept of sustainable development and are not legal, nevertheless, special attention from interested individuals and states allows them to have a significant impact on the development of legal instruments.

In article explores the procedure for concluding a settlement agreement in civil proceedings. It is shown that in accordance with the current civil procedure legislation, the issue of approving a settlement agreement is considered at a court hearing with the mandatory participation of all interested parties. The paper critically evaluates the exception to this rule, expressed in the possibility of sending an application for approval of a settlement agreement in the absence of interested parties (Part 3 of Article 153.10 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Part 3 of Article 141 Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the course of the conducted research, it was found that in civil and arbitration proceedings, the issue of approving a settlement agreement concluded at the stage of preparing the case for trial is resolved differently. The author makes critical comments on this. It is argued that the approval of the settlement agreement reached at the stage of preparing the case for trial, both in civil and arbitration proceedings, should take place in the preliminary, and not the main court session.

The presence of two opposite specialist’s participation models used by the domestic legislator in three existing civil procedural codes demonstrates the competition of the adversarial principle implementation approaches in the civil procedure. The doctrinal assessment of each model of the specialist’s involving to the litigation is also ambiguous. This resulted, notably with the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court «blessing», in the development of the practice of applying in the arbitration process the model enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which gives rise to some kind of curiosity: the court calls the specialist not on its own initiative, in accordance with art. 87.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, at the request or with the consent of the parties, that, in particular, seems unacceptable in the specialized arbitration court, where an adviser from the apparatus of the same court can be called as a specialist. The question of the balance between public and private law elements of the adversarial principle has traditionally been the subject of doctrinal discussions. The article concludes that the implementation of the adversarial principle in the arbitration process is achievable only in combination with judicial guidance of the process, and the call of a specialist is possible only on the initiative of the arbitration court, taking into account the opinions of the persons participating in the case.

In Russia the number of persons brought to subsidiary liability is growing every year. The beneficiaries of such attraction are the debtor’s creditors; the institution of subsidiary liability is aimed to protect their interests. At the same time, the protection of the interests of controlling persons is relegated to the background. The procedural status of controlling persons in a bankruptcy case has not been sufficiently studied both from a theoretical and practical point of view. This question seems to be relevant, because in 2021 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation stated that there was a gap in legal regulation and the restriction of controlling persons in the right to defense. This article establishes the difference between persons participating in a bankruptcy case and persons participating in an arbitration process in a bankruptcy case; describes the current procedural status of the controlling persons; the current judicial practice is analyzed and a proposal is developed to amend the Bankruptcy Law in the relevant part.