Representative Actions in Russia
Class action is an important safeguard to protect the rights and legitimate interests of large groups of people and it has already proven successful in advanced foreign legal systems. One of the most popular forms of class action in countries with acontinental legal system (France, Sweden, Argentina) is a representative action, which is initiated by non-profit associations, i.e., “ideological claimants” (associations, foundations, non-profit organizations) in defense of violated collective rights of a large group of people or unspecified persons in the most vulnerable areas of economic life. The institution of collective redress by representative bodies is less popular in countries with common law legal systems (the USA, Australia, Canada), which traditionally use class actions. Nevertheless, countries with common law legal systems such as the United Kingdom (England and Wales) actively use the legal tools for the social protection of the violated rights and interests of citizens. This article analyzes the legislative consolidation and application of representative actions in the Russian Federation. The absence of amechanism (for filing alawsuit before the decision) of judicial protection of professional representatives’ collective rights and public interests according to the generally accepted international practices involving interested persons whose rights have been violated (opt-in or opt-out), creates barriers to the development of representative actions in Russia. At the same time, the scope of these claims and the judicial protection of collective rights and public interests by public associations has its own characteristics, which can be used by legislators to effectively protect human rights.
About the AuthorDmitry Shandurskiy
Postgraduate, Department of Civil Law and Procedure, Institute of State and Law
38 Lenina St., Tyumen, 625000
1. Вербик Ф. Почему дорога закрыта? Необоснованное ограничение, налагаемое на корпорацию правовых услуг касательно коллективных исков // Вестник гражданского процесса. 2012. № 5. С. 177–196 [Verbic F. Why is the Road Closed? Unreasonable Restriction Imposed on the Legal Services Corporation Regarding Class Actions, 5 Herald of Civil Procedure 177 (2012)].
2. Fiss O.M. & Bronsteen J. The Class Action Rule, 78(5) Notre Dame Law Review 1419 (2003).
3. Hazard G. et al. An Historical Analysis of the Binding Nature of Class Suits, 146 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1849 (1998).
4. Hodges C. Europeanisation of Civil Justice: Trends and Issues, 26 Civil Justice
5. Quarterly 96 (2007).
6. Hodges C. The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal
7. Systems: A New Framework for Collective Redress in Europe (Oxford: Hart, 2008).
8. Karlsgodt P.G. World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions Around the Globe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
9. Klonoff R.H. et al. Class Actions and Other Multi-Party Litigation: Cases And Materials (St. Paul: West Group, 2000).
10. Maleshin D. Overview of Russian Civil Justice, 3(4) BRICS Law Journal 41 (2016).
11. Mulheron R. The Class Action in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Hart, 2004).
12. Rabiej J.K. The Making of Class Action Rule 23 – What Were We Thinking?, 24 Mississippi College Law Review 323 (2005).
13. Shapiro D.L. Class Actions: The Class as Party and Client, 73(4) Notre Dame Law Review 913 (1998).
14. Valdez F. Procedure, Policy and Power: Class Actions and Social Justice in Historical and Comparative Perspective, 24 Georgia State University Law Review 627 (2008).
15. Yeazell S.C. Collective Litigation as Collective Action, University of Illinois Law Review 43 (1989).
For citation: Shandurskiy D. Representative Actions in Russia. Russian Law Journal. 2018;6(1):100-118. https://doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2018-6-1-100-118
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0.