Pre-trial settlement

In recent years, statistics have recorded a significant increase in the judicial burden. On the one hand, this circumstance can be regarded as evidence of an increase in the legal culture of the population: citizens permit the possibility of legal protection of their legitimate interests by appealing to the appropriate bodies. On the other hand, this leads to a significant increase in the volume of cases to be considered.

So, according to the information of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Arbitration Court, in 2006, 7,564,000 civil cases were considered, and by 2010 their number has already reached 12,914,000. At present, the number of disputable legal relations, decisions on which the judges make, continues to grow.

This trend is not only predictable and fully consistent with the state's policy of raising the legal culture and eliminating nihilism, the statistics directly reflects the achievement of the goal - the citizens' legal awareness is growing every year. Therefore, the fact that the state is not ready for a proportionate growing burden of expanding the state of the courts remains inexplicable.

The result of increasing the number of cases for each judge is the deterioration in the quality of each legal dispute. The desire to make a decision as quickly as possible is more than understandable, given the desire to meet the deadlines set by the law and pressure from the load-sharing chairmen.

The increase in the staff of judges, however, also does not seem to be an effective solution to the problem, since this will not affect the trend of an annual increase in the volume of civil cases. Pre-trial settlement of disputes can contribute to reducing the burden .

Improving the mechanism of peaceful conflict resolution and voluntary fulfillment of duties will positively affect economic activity and civil turnover in general.

For example, pre-trial settlement of tax disputes contributes to the solution of most problems in this area. But in practice there are cases of improper fulfillment by the authorized bodies of their obligations. Pre-trial settlement of conflicts through the fault of certain officials may turn into an additional procedure, often burdensome for the party whose rights have been violated. But this problem can be solved by toughening the responsibility of the controlling bodies.

Pre-trial settlement will not allow, for example, unscrupulous insurance companies to violate the rights of their clients, forcing them to apply to the court to obtain the insured amount of the established amount. In addition, it is reasonable to introduce additional penalties for abusive enterprises. The payment of costs incurred in connection with the proceedings is not a significant waste for an unscrupulous insurance company.

Pre-trial settlement of disputes as a legal institution has great potential. It can act as a means of unloading ships and is a method of supporting the formation of civil society. Thus, pre-trial settlement is a mechanism conducive to the formation of a rule-of-law state.