Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:52:01.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Too Much of a Good Thing? Assessing Access to Civil Justice in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kathryn Hendley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kathryn Hendley argues that easy access to the civil courts in Russia is a deliberate policy choice aimed at countering the popular image of courts as hopelessly corrupt and incompetent that is propagated by the media. Judicial officials present judges as heroically struggling to cope with the deluge of cases in a timely fashion. Relying on field work and analysis of caseload data, Hendley shows that the burden on trial-level Russian judges has been exaggerated for effect. She documents the procedural mechanisms available to facilitate rapid turnaround of simple cases. She argues that the flood of cases could easily be stanched by increasing filing fees, but that judicial officials cling to the open door policy as a way of proving the value of the courts. Rather than discouraging the demand for courts, they prefer to tinker with the supply side of the equation.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , Winter 2013 , pp. 802 - 827
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The field research reported on in this article was funded by a Fulbright research grant and a Title VIII Hewett Policy Fellowship from the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research. Additional funding was provided by the Law School at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Earlier versions of this article were given as a keynote address at the conference on “Changing the Russian Law: Legality and Current Challenges,” in Helsinki, Finland, as part of the series on “Property Rights, Power, and the Rule of Law“ at Northwestern University, and at the University of South Carolina. The article benefitted from comments received at these venues as well as from comments by the anonymous reviewers for Slavic Review.

1. Markovits, Inga, Imperfect Justice: An East-West German Diary (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

2. On the question of why Russians continue to flock to courts that, according to public opinion polls, they do not trust, see Hendley, Kathryn, “The Puzzling Non-Consequences of Societal Distrust of Courts: Explaining the Use of Russian Courts,” Cornell International Law Journal 45, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 517–67Google Scholar. The analysis shows that trust in the courts is not a key motivating factor for individuals or firms when deciding whether to take disputes to court.

3. For a thorough overview of the Khodorkovskii case, see Kahn, Jeffrey, “Report on the Verdict against M. B. Khodorkovsky and P. L. Lebedev,” Journal of Eurasian Law 4, no. 3 (2011): 321–410 Google Scholar. On the case brought against Pussy Riot, see Herszenhorn, David M., “Anti-Putin Stunt Earns Punk Band Two Years in Jail,” New York Times, 17 August 2012 Google Scholar.

4. The defendants in such cases typically argue that the charges have been “ordered“ ﹛zakaznye) by their more politically powerful former business allies as a way to gain the upper hand. The memoir literature that has begun to appear paints a picture of a criminal justice system that can be manipulated by the powerful and wealthy. See, e.g., Romanova, Ol'ga, Butyrka (Moscow, 2010)Google Scholar; and Iakovleva, Iana, Neelektronnye pis'ma (Moscow, 2008)Google Scholar. For an overview of the practice of criminalizing business disputes, see Firestone, Thomas, “Armed Injustice: Abuse of the Law and Complex Crime in Post-Soviet Russia,” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 38, no. 4 (Fall 2010): 555–80Google Scholar.

5. For example, see Lambert-Mogiliansky, Ariane, Sonin, Konstantin, and Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, “Are Russian Commercial Courts Biased? Evidence from a Bankruptcy Law Transplant,” Journal of Comparative Economics 35, no. 2 (June 2007): 254–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. For a sample of the robust literature on the nagging problem of delays within the U.S. system, see Heise, Michael, “Justice Delayed? An Empirical Analysis of Civil Case Disposition Time,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 50, no. 4 (Summer 2000): 813–49Google Scholar. Though superficially similar to the problem I am investigating, in that it also addresses an overloaded judicial system, the very different institutional structures of the courts make any direct comparison specious.

7. The availability of legal assistance to Russians who lack the means to pay is an important issue, though beyond the scope of this article. Criminal defendants are legally required to be represented and the state pays for attorneys for those who cannot afford them. The same courtesy is not extended to civil litigants. Whether the state should underwrite attorneys’ fees in civil cases is being actively debated. See, e.g., Ivanova, L. O., ed., Predlozheniia po povysheniiu dostupnosti pravosudiia dlia maloimushchikh i sotsial'no nezashchishchennykh grazhdan—uchastnikov grazhdanskogo protsessa (Moscow, 2011)Google Scholar; and Tarasov, O. A., “Problemy zakonodatel'nogo regulirovaniia iuridicheskoi pomoshchi maloimushchim grazhdanam,” in Golovacheva, V. V., ed., Besplatnaia iuridicheskaia pomoshch' i obespechenie dostupa kpravosudiiu vRossii (Moscow, 2010), 70–85 Google Scholar.

8. Several intriguing studies were commissioned by the World Bank as part of its effort to improve court management. See, e.g., World Bank, “Brazil—Making Justice Count: Measuring and Improving Judicial Performance in Brazil,” Report No. 32789-BR (Washington, D.C., 2004); and Bo Svensson, “Judicial Modernization Projects in Guatamala and El Salvador” (unpublished manuscript, 7 July 2007). For a discussion of caseload trends within the European Union, see Bo Svensson, “Civil and Criminal Justice—Swedish Experiences“ (unpublished manuscript, 11 December 2006).

9. For an overview of the structure of the Russian judicial system, see Hendley, Kathryn, “Russian Federation,” in Kritzer, Herbert M., ed., Legal Systems of the World: A Political, Social, and Cultural Encyclopedia (Santa Barbara, Calif., 2002), 3:1377–83Google Scholar.

10. Hendley, Kathryn, “Assessing the Role of the Justice-of-the-Peace Courts in the Russian Judicial System,” Review of Central and East European Law 37, no. 4 (2012): 373–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. As of July 2010, all opinions and other judicial acts are required to be posted on the Internet. “Ob obespechenii dostupa k informatsii o deiatel'nosti sudov v Rossiiskoi Federatsii,“ Rossiiskaia gazeta, 26 December 2008, at http://www.rg.ru/2008/12/26/sud-internet-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

12. For an overview of “state arbitrazh,” from which the arbitrazh courts evolved, see Stanislaw Pomorski, “State Arbitrazh in the U.S.S.R.: Development, Functions, Organization,“ Rutgers-Camden Law Journal 9, no. 1 (Fall 1976/Winter 1977): 61-115. With the shift in status to a full-fledged court, the jurisdiction of the arbitrazh courts was expanded to include all types of disputes involving legal entities, including those involving the state as well as bankruptcy. See Hendley, Kathryn, “Remaking an Institution: The Transition in Russia from State Arbitrazh to Arbitrazh Courts,” American Journal of Comparative Law 46, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 93–127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. Hendley, “Assessing the Role,” 393.

14. Hendley, Kathryn, “The Unsung Heroes of the Russian Judicial System: The Justice-of-the-Peace Courts,” journal of Eurasian Law 5, no. 3 (2012): 337–69Google Scholar.

15. This recalculation for 2011 reveals that, for civil cases, the per capita workload in the Central okrug was 0.002, whereas for the Far Eastern okrug, it was 0.024. For administrative cases, it was 0.00133 for the Central okrug and 0.0122 for the Far Eastern okrug. Hendley, “Unsung Heroes,” table 1.

16. Originally the law mandated a JP for every 15,000 to 30,000 citizens. The adjustment was made in 2006 due to the undue burden on some JPs in heavily populated regions. “0 vnesenii izmenenii v stat'iu 4 Federal'nogo zakona ‘0 mirovikh sud'iakh v Rossiiskoi Federatsii,'” 11 March 2006, at base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi? req=doc;base=LAW;n=58966 (last accessed 19 July 2013).

17. “0 vnesenii izmenenii v stat'iu 3 Federal'nogo zakona ‘0 mirovikh sud'iakh v Rossiiskoi Federatsii’ i stat'iu 23 Grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” Rossiiskaia gazeta, 15 February 2010, at http://www.rg.ru/2010/02/15/miroviye-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

18. “0 mirovykh sud'iakh v Rossiiskoi Federatsii,” 17 December 1998, with amendments through 4 March 2013, at base.garant.ru/12113961/ (last accessed 19 July 2013).

19. Hendley, “Assessing the Role,” 383.

20. “Mirovaia iustitsiia: Sotsial'nyi barometr,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 10 (2009): 18-24.

21. Tkachev, V. V., “Rabota mirovykh sudei s naseleniiem,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 5 (2004): 2 Google Scholar; Iusipova, S. A., “Interv'iu mirovogo sud'i sudebnogo uchastka No. 24 Zhalud' Igoria Iur'evicha, naznachennogo na dolzhnost’ 26 aprelia 2005 goda Sovetom narodnykh deputatov Kamchatskoi oblasti,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 6 (2006): 30 Google Scholar.

22. Piskunova, Iana, “Vysokaia nagruzka i effektivnost’ pravosudiia—veshchi nesovmestimye,“ Zakort, no. 4 (April 2009): 98 Google Scholar.

23. Natal ‘ia Shiniaeva, “Vstrecha predsedatelia Visshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda s predstaviteliami SMI,” Pravo.ru, 20 February 2012, at pravo.ru/review/view/68916/ (last accessed on 19 July 2013).

24. Bol'shova, A. K., “Sostoianie i perspektivy sokrashcheniia nagruzki na sudei,“ Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava, no. 10 (October 2010): 86 Google Scholar.

25. Trunina, A. A., “Kakoi on—mirovoi sud'ia? Vzgliad s kresla mirovogo sud'i. Resul'taty sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia, provedennogo redaktsiei zhurnala mirovoi sud'ia,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 4 (2004): 30 Google Scholar.

26. Razinkova, M. N., “Interv’ iu s mirovym sudei sudebnogo uchastka No. 7 Sovetskogo raiona g. Voronezha Kudrinoi Galinoi Vasil'evnoi,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 3 (2004): 32 Google Scholar.

27. Trunina, “Kakoi on,” 31.

28. Volkov, Vadim, Dmitrieva, Arina, Pozdniakov, Mikhail, and Titaev, Kirill, Rossiiskie sud'i kak professionalnaia gruppa: Sotsiologicheskoe issledovanie (St. Petersburg, 2012), 46 Google Scholar.

29. Ibid., 45.

30. Ibid., 47.

31. Ibid., 46.

32. “0 khode vypolneniia porucheniia Prezidenta Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 5 dekabria 2010 g. No. Pr-3250 po podgotovke predlozhenii o putiakh optimizatsii nagruzki na sudei,“ Postanovlenie Soveta sudei Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 26 maia 2011 g. No. 278, at http://www.ssrf.ru/page/650/detail/ (last accessed 19 July 2013).

33. “0 neobkhodimosti zakonodatel ‘nogo uregulirovaniia norm nagruzki sudei sudov obshchei iurisdiktsii, arbitrazhnykh sudov i rabotnikov apparatov sudov,” Postanovlenie Soveta sudei Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 20 maia 2010 g. No. 259, at http://www.ssrf.ru/page/636/detail/ (last accessed 19 July 2013).

34. “Medvedev schitaet neobkhodimym snizit’ nagruzku na mirovykh sudei,” Vesti. ru, 10 October 2011, at http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=593638 (last accessed 19 July 2013).

35. P'er Sidibe, “Sud'i pozhalovalis’ Medvedevu na bol'shuiu nagruzku,” Izvesdia, 27 January 2012, at izvestia.ru/news/513412 (last accessed 19 July 2013).

36. Volkov, Dmitrieva, Pozdniakov, and Titaev, Rossiiskie sud'i, 46.

37. Hendley, Kathryn, “Business Litigation in the Transition: A Portrait of Debt Collection in Russia,” Law and Society Review 38, no.2 (June 2004): 305–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38. “0 vnesenii izmenenii i dopolnenii v Grazhdanskii protsessual'nyi kodeks RSFSR,” Sobranie zakonodatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, no. 49, art. 4696, 1995. For a fuller discussion of the history of the use of judicial orders in Russia, see Cheremin, M. A., Prikaznoe proizvodstvo v rossiiskom grazhdanskom protsesse (Moscow, 2001), 24–54 Google Scholar.

39. For a list of the causes of actions that can be resolved via judicial orders, see Grazhdanskii Protsessual'nyi Kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GPK RF), art. 122. For an analysis that advocates expanding the types of cases for which judicial orders can be used, drawing on the experience of other former Soviet countries, see Zagainova, S. K., “Ob osnovnykh tendentsiiakh razvitiia prikaznogo proizvodstva,” Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 4 (2007): 16 Google Scholar.

40. GPK RF, art. 126, with amendments through 26 April 2013, at base.consultant.ru/ cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=145448 (last accessed 19 July 2013).

41. Ibid., art. 128.

42. Ibid., art. 129.

43. Zagainova, “Ob osnovnykh tendentsiiakh,” 15.

44. GPK RF, art. 123.

45. For a discussion of how other European countries manage such “empty” cases, see Blankenburg, Erhard, “Patterns of Legal Culture: The Netherlands Compared to Neighboring Germany,” American Journal of Comparative Law 46, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 17–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He compares the Netherlands, where many cases are diverted through alternative mechanisms, and Germany, where courthouse staff take responsibility for these cases. When I raised these sorts of options with Russian judges and court administrators, I was met with blank stares.

46. Cheremin, Prikaznoe proizvodstvo, 3.

47. The appropriateness of this procedural mechanism for the JP courts is reflected in the fact that, in the law authorizing these courts, cases involving sudebnye prikazy are singled out as being within the jurisdiction of the JP courts (Art. 3, part 1[2], 0 mirovykh 1998). Between 2008 and 2011, more than 99 percent of all sudebnye prikazy were issued by the JP courts.

48. In a 2010 study that monitored the activities of JP courts in Leningrad oblast and Perm krai, researchers found that about one-third of plaintiffs and one-seventh of all defendants were represented. Ivanova, ed., Predlozheniia po povysheniiu dostupnosti, 18-19.

49. A change in the rules for several categories of administrative cases is a good example. As the chairman of the arbitrazh court for Nizhnii Novgorod explained: “The court has been freed from a huge quantity of tax cases. Previously all tax collection cases proceeded through the court. The amount at issue could be 50 kopeks, yet the tax inspection would put in a complaint. In reality, these cases lacked any real dispute [besspornye]. The taxpayers clearly understood that they owed the state 50 kopeks but did not want to wait in a long line to pay their debt. Now the tax inspectorate can simply send a bill for these trivial amounts. If taxpayers feel that their rights have been violated, they can appeal to the court and challenge the bill. But almost no one makes such challenges.” Piskunova, “Vysokaia nagruzka,” 98.

50. “0 vnesenii izmenenii v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii v sviazi s sovershenstvovaniem primiritel'nykh protsedur,” 22 December 2011, at http:// http://www.arbitr.ru/_upimg/60E211AF589F7B2C88310DEA054F8857_npoeKT_0)3_npMMMp.pdf (last accessed 19 July 2013).

51. In a February 2012 press conference, the chairman of the Higher Arbitrazh Court reiterated his support for higher filing fees but noted that it was not a politically popular position. Shiniaeva, “Vstrecha predsedatelia.“

52. The draft law provides that judges who deal with more than the number of cases approved by the Council of Judges are to receive an additional 1 percent of their salary for every additional 5 percent of cases they handle. “0 neobkhodimosti zakonodatel'nogo uregulirovaniia norm.“

53. “0 khode vypolneniia.“

54. E.g., R. E. Volosatykh, “Neobkhodimo naiti razumyi balans mezhdu nezavisimost'iu sudei i ikh otvetstvennost'iu pered obshchestvom,” Sud'ia, no. 4 (April 2012), at http://zhurnalsudya.ru/archive/2012/4/?article=528 (last accessed 19 July 2013); and Latysheva, N., “Piaf let ispolnilos’ sudebnym uchastkam mirvovykh sudei Plesetskovo raiona,“ Mirovoi sud'ia, no. 4 (2007): 23–24 Google Scholar.

55. “0 vnesenii izmenenii v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossiiskoi Federatsii,“ 6 March 2013, at www.rg.ru/2013/03/06/sudju-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

56. Volkov, Dmitrieva, Pozdniakov, and Titaev, Rossiiskie sud'i.

57. Mariia Eismont, “My dolzhny verif ne dokazatel'stvam, a silovikam na slovo,“ PublicPost, 25 May 2012, at http://www.publicpost.ru/theme/id/lA95/my_dolzhny_verit_ne_dokazatelstvam_a_silovikam_na_slovo/ (last accessed 19 July 2013).

58. “0 vnesenii izmenenii.“

59. Arbitrazhnyi Protsessial'nyi Kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii (APK), with amendments through 22 April 2013, chap. 29, at base.garant.ru/12127526/ (last accessed on 19 July 2013).

60. “Internet-interv'iu s V. F. Iakovlevym, Predsedatelem Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii: ‘Rabota arbitrazhnykh sudov v 2002 godu,'” 20 February 2003, at http://www.consultant.ru/law/interview/yakovlev.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

61. V. F. Iakovlev, “Itogi raboty arbitrazhnykh sudov v 2003 g. Osnovye zadachi na 2003 g., 11 February 2004, at www.arbitr.ru/press-centr/news/totals/2003/doklad.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

62. Hendley, Kathryn, “Accelerated Procedure in the Russian Arbitrazh Courts: A Case Study of Unintended Consequences,” Problems of Post-Communism 52, no. 6 (November/ December 2005): 21–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. APK, art. 229.

64. E.g., Piskunova, “Vysokaia nagruzka,” 98; and Belousov, Aleksei, “la iskrenne ubezhden, chto arbitrazhnaia sistema—odin iz effektivno deistvuiushchikh gosudarstvennykh institutov, koikh v Rossii ne tak uzh mnogo,” Zakon, no. 5 (May 2012): 83 Google Scholar.

65. “0 vnesenii v Gosudarstvennuiu Dumu Federal ‘nogo Sobraniia Rossiiskoi Federatsii proketa federal'nogo zakona ‘0 vnesenii izmenenii v Arbitrazhnyi protsessual'nyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii i chast’ vtoruiu Nalagovogo kodeksa Rossiiskoi Federatsii v sviazi s sovershenstvovaniem uproshchennogo proizvodstva,'” Postanovlenie Plenuma Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiiskoi Federatsii, No. 29,24 March 2011, at http://www.arbitr.ru/as/pract/post_plenum/34390.html (last accessed 6 August 2013).

66. Shiniaeva, “Vstrecha predsedatelia.“

67. “0 vnesenii izmenenii v Arbitrazhnyi protsessual'nyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii v sviazi s sovershenstvovaniem uproshchennogo proizvodstva,” 27 June 2012, at http://www.rg.ru/2012/06/27/apk-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

68. Kontrol'no-analiticheskoe upravlenie, Vysshii arbitrazhnyi sud Rossiiskoi Federatsii, “Analiticheskaia zapiska k statisticheskomu otchetu o rabote arbitrazhnykh sudov Rossiiskoi Federatsii v 2012 godu,” at http://arbitr.ru/_upimg/DFF18C5F128D5D4EF1164A800Al8CDlE_l.pdf (last accessed 19 luly 2013).

69. Public opinion surveys consistently show low levels of trust in the courts. For example, in a poll fielded by the Foundation for Public Opinion in March 2011, only 16 percent of respondents saw the courts in a positive light. “Otsenka raboty rossiiskikh sudov,“ at http://bd.fom.ru/report/map/dominant/dominant2011/domllll/dlllll8 (last accessed 21 August 2013). In a June 2012 poll of the Levada Center on trust in various state institutions, only 21 percent of respondents said the courts deserved their trust. “Doveria institutam vlasti,” at www.levada.ru/02-ll-2012/doverie-institutam-vlasti (last accessed 8 August 2013). In a country with three types of courts, simply asking about courts may produce more noise than information.

70. “Ob al'ternativnoi protsedure uregulirovaniia sporov s uchastiem posrednika (protsedure mediatsii),” Rossiiskaia gazeta, 30 July 2010, at www.rg.ru/2010/07/30/ mediacia-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).

71. Bol'shova, “Sostoianie i perspektivy“; Krasnopevtsev, A. S., “Opyt primeneniia medatsii v mirovykh sudakh Sankt-Peterburga,” Treteiskii sud, no. 3 (2011): 144–47Google Scholar; and Fedorenko, N. V., “Mediatsiia: Ekonomicheskie i pravovye aspekty,” Treteiskii sud, no. 5 (2007): 156–62Google Scholar.

72. Gorbuz, A. K., Krasnov, M. A., Mishina, E. A., and Satarov, G. A., Transformatsiia rossiiskoi sudebnoi vlasti: Opyt kompleksnogo analiza (Moscow, 2010): 367–74Google Scholar.

73. Hendley, Kathryn, “What If You Build It and No One Comes? The Introduction of Mediation to Russia,” Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 14, no. 3 (Spring 2013): 727–58Google Scholar.

74. Lazarev, Sergei Viktorovich, “Chto sderzhivaet razvitie primiritel'nykh protsedur?,“ Treteiskii sud, no. 6 (2010): 117 Google Scholar; and Lazarev, , “Opros iurfirm po itogam praktiki za 2010 god,” Zakon, no. 12 (December 2010): 30–46 Google Scholar.

75. A crude marker for settlement is the incidence of cases resolved through “peaceful agreements” (mirovye soglasheniia). For 2011, these accounted for 2.7 percent of cases at the arbitrazh courts, and 0.7 percent of cases at the JP courts. Hendley, “The Unsung Heroes of the Russian Judicial System,” tables 1 and 2.

76. Lazarev, Sergei Viktorovich, Osnovy sudebnogo primireniia (Moscow, 2011)Google Scholar; and Reshetnikova, I. V., ed., Metodika sudebnogo primireniia (Ekaterinburg, 2011)Google Scholar.

77. Shevchenko, Olga, Crisis and the Everyday in Postsocialist Moscow (Bloomington, 2009)Google Scholar.

78. APK, art. 9; GPK RF, art. 12.

79. Berman, Harold J., Justice in the U.S.S.R.: An Interpretation of Soviet Law, rev. ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. Piskunova, “Vysokaia nagruzka,” 101.

81. For a historical perspective on the use of such indicators, see Solomon, Peter H. Jr., “The Bureaucratization of Criminal Justice under Stalin,” in Solomon, Peter H. Jr., ed., Reforming Justice in Russia, 1864-1996: Power, Culture, and the Limits of Legal Order (Armonk, N.Y., 1997), 247 Google Scholar.

82. Merryman, John Henry and Perez-Perdomo, Rogelio, The Civil Law Tradition, 3rd ed. (Stanford, 2007)Google Scholar.

83. Hendley, Kathryn, “Are Russian Judges Still Soviet?” Post-Soviet Affairs 23, no. 3 (July-September 2007): 240–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84. “0 kompensatsii za narushenie prava na sudoproizvodstvo v razumnyi srok ili prava na izpolnenie sudebnogo akta v razumnyi srok,” Rossiiskaia gazeta, 4 May 2010, at http://www.rg.ru/2010/05/04/razumnisrok-dok.html (last accessed 19 July 2013).