The article is devoted to the analysis of procedural doctrine and judicial practice of the
problem of incorrect determination of the circumstances relevant to the case as a basis for
the abolition of judicial acts in civil and administrative proceedings. The author analyzes
the problems of material legal facts as objects of proof and knowledge in civil procedure
and administrative proceedings. It is concluded that the complexity of determining the
circumstances that are important for the proper consideration and resolution of the case,
due to the structure of the rules of substantive law, namely the type of hypotheses and
dispositions of substantive law. The formation of the subject of proof involves its prequalification
by searching for the substantive law governing the disputed legal relationship.
An error in the choice of substantive law, qualifying the disputed material legal relationship,
can lead not only to the wrong definition of legally significant circumstances, and the
abolition of the judicial act on appeal, but also to the abolition of court decisions in
the case in cassation and supervisory procedure. In order to overcome the miscarriage
of justice of the court of first instance, the court of appeal has the necessary procedural
powers, which depend on the type of appeal in the process. The courts of cassation and
supervisory instance courts to correct miscarriages of justice courts of first and appellate
instance is entitled the case for a new trial in a competent court because it denied the right
of establishing a new factual circumstances of the case.
Keywords: civil procedure; administrative proceedings; circumstances of the subject of
proof; grounds for cancellation of judicial acts.