The subject of this article is the category of state duty for filing a lawsuit. The impetus for this research was both the changed provisions of tax legislation regarding state duty rates and the accumulated questions in judicial practice. A thesis is expressed and substantiated that the new amounts of state duties, despite their sensitivity for applicants, do not contradict the ideas of accessibility to justice. Conversely, the purpose of the court costs institute (and, in particular, the state duty) is to ensure that applicants act in good faith when exercising their procedural rights. The previous version of the tax legislation no longer fulfilled this function. Access to justice is ensured by mechanisms that allow one to overcome the obligation to pay the state duty in difficult financial circumstances. Such mechanisms are provided for in domestic procedural legislation and are effectively applied in practice. The article analyzes the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 10, 2025, No. 16‑P. The legal stance of the constitutional review body is characterized by the author of the article as expected and generally predictable. Ideas synonymous with the Constitutional Court’s position have been expressed repeatedly in doctrinal developments on the concept of access to justice. Some contemporary issues regarding the application of state duty legislation are illustrated, including the problems of applying new provisions of tax legislation over time. The necessity and timeliness of the development of new conceptual clarifications by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are justified.
Evgeniy Fokin (Wed,) studied this question.