After the entry of a judicial act or a decision of an authorized official into legal force, there is still the possibility of challenging them. The supervisory authority is reviewing such acts based on relevant complaints from interested parties.
By filing supervisory complaints, decisions of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into force are appealed. Complaints are filed to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, and then to the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In arbitration proceedings, a supervisory authority - the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation - is not filed a complaint, but an application for revising a judicial act by way of supervision, which is essentially not
The law provides clear requirements for the form and content of a supervisory complaint, failure to comply with which leads to its abandonment or return.
So, the content of the supervisory complaint includes:
Introductory part. The name of the court to which the complaint is addressed; name of the person filing the complaint.
Main part. An indication of the court decision that is being appealed; the claims of the person filing the complaint and the grounds on which he considers the court decision to be incorrect.
The pleading part. It is separated from the main test of the complaint by the word "I ask", after which the applicant's request for the commission of certain actions by the court, leading to the competence of the supervisory instance court, is stated. So, according to Art. 390 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Art. 305 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the supervisory court can be asked to cancel the judicial act in whole or in part and transfer the case for a new consideration, to cancel the judicial act and make a new decision, to cancel the judicial act and terminate the proceedings, etc.
List of applications.
A judicial act will be canceled or amended if the court substantially violated the norms of substantive or procedural law (Article 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation), as well as if the decision taken violates the uniformity in the interpretation and application of the rules of law by arbitration courts, violates the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, violates the rights and legitimate interests of an indefinite circle of persons or other public interests (Article 304 of the APC RF). The complaint must necessarily contain arguments regarding the grounds for canceling judicial acts adopted at the first or second instance.
Sample writing a supervisory complaint:
To the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court
410028, Saratov, st. Michurina, 85
From Ivanov I. I., residing at the address 410053, Saratov, st. Ogorodnaya, 6
Supervisory complaint
on the entered into force decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Saratov from 10.06.2011 in case No. 12-33 / 2011 on the complaint of Ivanov I. AND. on the decision in the case of an administrative offense No. RA 64 741686 dated 30.04.2011.
By the decision in the case of an administrative offense No. RA 64 741686 dated 30.04.2011. I was prosecuted for committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 12.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
By the decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Saratov dated 10.06.2011, I was denied the satisfaction of the complaint against the said decision.
I believe that this decision is subject to cancellation in view of a significant violation by the court of the norms of substantive law; inconsistency of the conclusions of the court of first instance, set out in the court decision, with the circumstances of the case.
2011-30-04 at about 21.00 I, driving a car VAZ 21101, registration number Р630ХР, moved along the carriageway of st. Moscow city of Saratov from the side of st. Astrakhanskaya in the direction of st. Rakhov at a speed of 40 km / h at a distance of 3-4 m from the right edge of the carriageway in the middle lane.
At the same time, a VAZ 217030 car, registration number P 100 KX, was moving in the far right lane. At the moment the specified car approached the bus, which followed in the same lane in front of it, the driver of the VAZ 217030 car unexpectedly moved into my lane and, for no apparent reason, braked sharply. Having taken all possible measures to prevent a traffic accident, I still could not avoid a collision.
The traffic police officers who arrived at the scene of the traffic accident issued a decision to convict me of the specified traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) and impose an administrative fine on me.
The court of first instance, when making its decision, proceeded from the fact that the presence of a decision signed by me in a case of an administrative offense indicates the absence of procedural violations in this case and excludes the possibility of canceling the decision in connection with my disagreement with my conviction of an accident.
However, I consider it necessary to note that my signature on the decree was put when the traffic police officers assured me that it would not be an obstacle to challenging and canceling this decree by the authorized bodies. In addition, in violation of the current procedure for registration of road traffic accidents, I was forced to arrive at the late time of the day (00.30) at the traffic police department for the Leninsky district of Saratov, while I live in the Smirnovsky gorge, in order to get my driver's license, the latter took advantage of the indicated circumstances and hurried me with the paperwork.
I believe that the decision on an administrative offense signed by me testifies only to my recognition of the fact of the event of a road traffic accident. However, I consider myself not guilty of committing it and therefore not subject to administrative responsibility.
In addition, I draw the attention of the court that it was precisely the sharp braking without the need (in violation of clause 10.5 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation) of the driver of the VAZ 217030 VAZ 217030 car that led to an accident, and not his maneuver of "rebuilding" into the left lane, as indicated in the appealed decision court.
Considering also that the specified driver braked immediately after the maneuver “change lanes to the left”, I simply could not keep the distance necessary to prevent an accident, as required by clause 9.10 of the RF SDA, since the VAZ 217030 car followed in the next lane, and not in front of me.
I also believe that the procedural violations committed by the traffic police when issuing a decision to impose a fine on me, entail the need to cancel it.
So, in violation of the requirements of Art. 28.6, 27.10, 32.3 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, the decision was issued not at the scene of the accident, but in the traffic police department in the Leninsky district of Saratov, where I was forced to proceed without the driver's license and vehicle registration certificate seized by the traffic police; the order itself does not contain information about the recipient of the fine, the surname and initials of the inspector are not legible; I was not given a certificate of an accident.
Based on the foregoing, in accordance with Art. p. 1 h. 2 tbsp. 377, art. 387, part 1, clause 5 of Art. 390 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Art. 30.9, 30.12-30.17 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, ASK:
1. The decision of the judge of the Leninsky District Court of Saratov dated 10.06.2011 in case No. 12-33 / 2011 on the applicant's complaint against the decision in the case of administrative offense No. RA 64 741686 dated 30.04.2011. cancel.
2. To make a new decision to revoke the recognition of the decision in the case of an administrative offense No. RA 64 741686 dated 30.04.2011.
Appendix: 1. A copy of the decision in the case of an administrative offense;
2. A copy of the decision of the court of first instance;
3. A copy of the complaint.
Applicant's signature
