VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL TIME LIMITS IN JUDICIAL PRACTICE AND THE ANNULMENT OF COURT DECISIONS

Abstract

This article analyzes cases of violation of procedural deadlines in judicial practice and their significance as a factor leading to the cancellation of court decisions. In the research work, it is substantiated that non-compliance with procedural deadlines leads to unjustified prolongation of court cases, restriction of procedural rights, and, as a result, cancellation or modification of court decisions in the appellate and cassation instances. The relevance of the research is explained by the fact that in judicial practice, due to violations of the deadlines for consideration of cases; the lack of a unified approach to the issue of restoring missed deadlines; and the uneven application of procedural norms, the stability of court decisions is not sufficiently ensured. The main goal of the research is to identify the causes of violations of procedural deadlines and to reveal the impact of such violations on the annulment of court decisions, as well as to develop scientifically based proposals aimed at strengthening procedural discipline in judicial practice. In the research process, methods of normative-legal analysis, comparative-legal method, study of judicial practice, and doctrinal analysis were used. The article identifies the organizational, subjective, and legal factors of violation of procedural deadlines and analyzes the workload of judges, the procedural actions of the participants in the process, and the lack of regulatory and legal clarity as the main reasons leading to the cancellation of court decisions. A comparative analysis with the judicial practice of Germany and the Netherlands shows that strict adherence to procedural deadlines is important in ensuring the stability of court decisions. Based on the research results, proposals were put forward for digital monitoring of procedural deadlines, clarifying the criteria for restoring deadlines, optimizing the workload of judges, and strengthening responsibility for procedural abuses. These conclusions can serve to improve judicial practice and reduce the cancellation of court decisions.