"We do not consider it expedient to transfer cases that are insignificant for the development of law to the cassation proceedings" – INTERVIEW

Chairman of the Civil Board of the Supreme Court Sanan Hajiyev answered e-huquq.az's questions on the proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, which caused wide discussions:

- Mr, Sanan, granting the right to impose a fine of up to 500 manat the lawyer who filed an unfounded petition and complaint to the courts was not unequivocally welcomed by the society. What was the need for this change, and what is its essence?

- In fact, the same issue is reflected in Article 120 of the current version of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was just that the exact amount was not indicated here, it was intended to deduct a certain amount in favor of the side to a reasonable extent in connection with unfounded complaints and unfounded claims for the extension of the case. Now there is a clarification of the amount. Usually, petitions and unfounded complaints are filed by lawyers. The judge must now evaluate the process and determine who is acting on the grounds of unjustified extension, the illegal grounds for not allowing the trial to be considered within the procedural time limits? Representative, lawyer or the side itself? Accordingly, a fine will be imposed. The fine is up to 500 manat, and in the second sentence it is reasonable. It is written in the old, ie the current edition, that it should be reasonable. In fact, in terms of the requirements of today's legislation, there is a possibility to impose a fine of more than 500 manat. We simply added that both the side, the lawyer and the representative will have the opportunity to be affected by this fine.

- As you mentioned, unfounded petitions will be determined by judges. In this case, it is claimed that judges will abuse this power. How will this issue be resolved?

- In general, Article 120 has not been widely applied to date. If you ask the lawyers, it seems that the courts and judges were generally reluctant to apply this issue. It was used in very exceptional cases. If this situation is abused, of course, there is an opportunity to appeal to the Judicial-Legal Council, higher judicial bodies, appeal against the fine and its removal. It does not mean that giving the court any authority. At the root of these changes are citizens' complaints to the judiciary. The main root of the complaints is only the unreasonable prolongation of the proceedings, delays, and failure to consider cases within the time limits set by the procedural legislation.

- As it is known, according to the amendments to the legislation, the limits of cassation appeals are also changed. It is planned to increase this limit from 2,000 to 5,000 manat. It is claimed that this will limit the ability of low-income families to appeal to court. What can you say about it?

- It is believed that this is a measure to reduce the workload of the court of cassation. But this is not the case. It is necessary to approach this issue from the opposite side. Up to 5,000 manat, civil cases in court are mainly domestic disputes. They are also alimony requirements. As you know, the requirements for increasing alimony come into force after the decision takes legal effect and are enforced. Statistics show that the percentage of such cases dismissed by the Supreme Court is very small. In fact, more than 90 percent of these decisions remain in force. In fact, the cassation of these cases prevents the restoration of the rights of those whose rights have been violated by the timely entry into force of these decisions. That is, if the decision of the appellate court remains in force, then it will be implemented in a timely manner. According to statistics, I can say that more than 200,000 cases were pending in the courts of first instance in 2018 and 2019. Only 26,000-28,000 of them were considered in the appellate court. Apparently, 70-80, even 90 percent of cases are not appealed. As for the cases considered in the appellate proceedings, a maximum of 8-9 thousand of them are considered in the cassation proceedings. It seems that 70% of cases do not come to the cassation, ie no cassation complaints are filed. In fact, those cases that have not been appealed are cases that have come into force. The timely entry into force of this work will be more balanced and will be to the benefit of the side, rather than to bring it to the cassation. We do not consider it expedient to transfer to the cassation proceedings cases that are so important, inconsistent with the spirit of cassation, insignificant in terms of the development of law and the provision of a unified judicial practice. The Supreme Court has the ability to monitor and generalize in terms of ensuring a unified judicial practice, with which the ability to assess the state of law enforcement on those claims remains our duty, opportunity and right.