Determinants and Pretending Methods of Judicial Errors in Russian Civil Proceedings

The work addresses the legal phenomenon of miscarriages of justice and is based on an analysis of current legislation, legal doctrine, and judicial practice. The purpose of the study is to characterize the theoretical and practical issues involved in the identification, correction, and prevention of miscarriages of justice in Russian civil proceedings. This includes elucidating the essence of miscarriages of justice, identifying their characteristics, classifying their types, determining the causes and conditions that lead to such miscarriages, examining the mechanisms for correcting them, and systematizing preventive measures. To achieve this, the author analyzes the concept and classification of judicial errors as understood by both law enforcers and legal scholars. Additionally, the author identifies the reasons behind judicial errors and the conditions that facilitate their occurrence. After reviewing current proposals for preventing miscarriages of justice, the author concludes that establishing uniform judicial practice is a promising method for prevention. This approach facilitates the development of tools to avert such errors. In essence, both procedural and organizational measures contribute to preventing miscarriages of justice. In exploring various measures for correcting miscarriages of justice, the author concludes that the sole mechanism for their rectification is the hierarchical review procedure of judicial acts. Within this procedure, based on the content of the complaint and the level of the court considering it, judicial errors are assessed and measures are taken to rectify them. The study reveals that the current procedural legislation is insufficient to fully address the problems associated with correcting judicial errors. This insufficiency is due to shortcomings in determining the most effective forms and content of appellate review, which result in inconsistencies in the legal regulation of unified procedural branches. There is a need to refine the objectives for reviewing cases based on new and newly discovered evidence and to develop a comprehensive supervisory review procedure.