We in a citing index:
To Whom You Can Make a Counterclaim, or an Interpretation Limiting the Means of Protection
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND PRACTICE
Head of the Legal Department of the PJSC «Nizhnekamskneftekhim»,
Member of the Association for the Advancement of Life and Education
DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017- 7-6-225-246
Conflicting interpretations that are inconsistent with doctrine and logic become mandatory for lower-level courts if they were issued by a higher authority. The Russian court system now has two level of cassation and interpretation by each cassation instance may create problems, since it is very difficult to overcome such an interpretation in a lower court by arguments based on systemic and doctrinal interpretation. According to the author of the article, precedents can be useful, since they are born in search of justice, but we would not want replicating injustice, that could be regarded as a precedent. The author considers interpretation of the current conditions of submission of a counterclaim as a debatable issue and gives examples of judicial practice, as well as doctrinal exposure, justifying his position. The Arbitration Procedure Code does not set a restriction on filing a counterclaim, in case when the respondent for a counterclaim is only the original plaintiff, and in the author’s opinion this right cannot be limited to judicial interpretation. The inadmissibility of filing a counterclaim as a consequence of restrictive interpretation entails a delay in the process and an additional burden on the judicial system by increasing the number of individual suits.
Keywords: counter claim; protective means; commentary; abridgement; civil procedure.
Abolonin G.O. Pravovoj mehanizm gruppovogo iska v SShA [The Legal Mechanism of the Class Action in the USA]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2015, no. 3. (In Russian)
Abushenko D.B. Kommentarij k glave 13 APK RF [Comment to the Chapter 13 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation]. In Yarkov V.V. (ed.). Kommentarij k Arbitrazhnomu protsessual’nomu kodeksu Rossijskoj Federatsii (postatejnyj) [Comment to the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Itemized)]. Moscow, 2011. (In Russian)
Adamovich V.K. Vstrechnyj isk (k ucheniyu o zachete) [Counterclaim (to the Doctrine of the Defalcation)]. St. Petersburg, 1899. (In Russian)
Fursov D.A. Predmet, sistema i osnovnye printsipy arbitrazhnogo protsessual’nogo prava (problemy teorii i praktiki) [The Subject, System and Basic Principles of Arbitration Procedural Law (Problems of Theory and Practice)]. Moscow, 1999. (In Russian)
Gataullin E.A. Marginal’naya yurisprudentsiya. Postanovka problemy na primere manipulyatsij s podsudnost’yu [Marginal Jurisprudence. Statement of the Problem on the Example of Manipulation with the Jurisdiction]. Korporativnye spory = Corporative Disputes, 2005, no. A. (In Russian)
Isaenkova O.V. Sredstva zashchity otvetchika protiv iska [Means of Defense of Defendant Against Suit]. In Afanasiev S.F. (ed.). Grazhdanskoe protsessual’noe pravo [Civil Procedural Law]. Moscow, 2014. (In Russian)
Endryus N. Sistema grazhdanskogo protsessa Anglii [Civil Procedure System of England]. Moscow, 2012. (In Russian)
Kardozo B.N. Priroda sudejskoj deyatel’nosti [The Nature of the Judicial Process]. Moscow, 2017. (In Russian)
Klejn N.I. Vstrechnyj isk v sude i arbitrazhe [Counterclaim in Court and Arbitration]. Moscow, 1964. (In Russian)
Klejn N.I. Vstrechnyj isk v sude i arbitrazhe [Counterclaim in Court and Arbitration]. Moscow, 2017. (In Russian)
Information about the author
Sultanov A.R. (Nizhnekamsk, Russia) – Head of the Legal Department of the PJSC «Nizhnekamskneftekhim», Member of the Association for the Advancement of Life and Education (423574, Republic of Tatarstan, Nizhnekamsk, PJSC «Nizhnekamskneftekhim »; e-mail: SultanovAR@nknh.ru).
Sultanov A.R. Komu mozhno zayavit’ vstrechnyj isk, ili tolkovanie, ogranichivayushchee sredstva zashchity [To Whom You Can Make a Counterclaim, or an Interpretation Limiting the Means of Protection]. Вестник гражданского процесса = Herald of Civil Procedure, 2017, no. 6, p. 225–246. (In Russian) DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2017- 7-6-225-246