Theoretical And Practical Problems of The Institution of Review of Judicial Decisions in Higher Instances in Civil Procedure

The institution of review of judicial decisions in higher instances occupies a central position in the architecture of civil procedure, serving simultaneously as a mechanism of error correction, an instrument of legal development, and a guarantor of procedural justice. This article examines the theoretical foundations and practical difficulties that characterize appellate, cassation, and supervisory review mechanisms across major legal traditions, with particular reference to post-Soviet civil procedure systems. Drawing on comparative procedural law scholarship, legislative texts, and judicial practice, the study identifies fundamental tensions between the principle of res judicata and the imperative of correctability, analyzes structural deficiencies in access to higher-instance review, and critically assesses the problem of inconsistent judicial interpretation as a systemic challenge to legal certainty. The article further examines the practical obstacles arising from excessive caseloads, the admissibility of new evidence at the appellate stage, and enforcement gaps that undermine the effectiveness of review decisions. Reform directions grounded in international standards and comparative experience are proposed as pathways toward a more coherent and effective system of judicial review in civil proceedings.Keywords:appellate review, cassation procedure, civil procedure, higher instances, judicial review, res judicata, supervisory review, legal certainty, procedural justice, error correction