The article examines the problem of abuse of procedural rights in arbitration proceedings. It is revealed the main characteristics of this phenomenon, which has a negative impact on the effectiveness of justice and the implementation of the objectives of the arbitration process. It is indicated that the lack of a normative definition of the legal institution in question, including the uncertainty of the criteria for its application, entails certain difficulties in forming a uniform and predictable law enforcement practice. The analysis of the content and manifestations of abuse of procedural rights in the arbitration process is carried out using an integrated approach, covering the study of the norms of current procedural legislation, the legal conclusions of higher courts, as well as theoretical and legal provisions presented in the scientific literature. The domestic studies devoted to the essence of procedural abuse are considered. Attention is paid to the problem of qualifying the passive behavior of the participants in the process, which, under certain circumstances, can be considered as a form of unfair exercise of procedural rights. It is emphasized that in the absence of direct legislative regulation, the courts, resolving such issues, rely mainly on the evaluative categories formulated in the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that the category of bad faith can be used as an auxiliary guideline in the exercise of judicial discretion, but it cannot replace the existence of clear legal criteria. The authors substantiate the need to introduce a comprehensive methodology for assessing the behavior of participants in the process, involving the analysis of both objective and subjective signs, confirmed by the totality of evidence in the case. It is pointed out that there is a need for further improvement of the regulatory framework and the formation of a sustainable practice of responding to procedural abuses in arbitration courts.
Хрулева et al. (Wed,) studied this question.