National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, Moscow 101000, Russian Federation
At the present stage, it is obviously necessary to protect the rights and legitimate interests of a group of individuals. Such institutions facilitate access to justice, streamline the judicial procedure and provide an opportunity to effectively protect their violated rights to a large number of individuals affected by the actions of a single defendant. At the same time, Russian legislation has not yet found an optimal and effective model for the institute of class action. The implementation of this institute into the Commercial Procedural Code of the Russian Federation did not ensure their wide practical applicability: for example, in the first half of 2018 only 18 lawsuits were filed to protect the rights of a group of individuals. At the same time, drafting law that introduces the institute of class actions also in a civil process continues. These circumstances provoke interest in foreign experience, in particular, the experience of states where the institute of class action works effectively. In the framework of this article, it is proposed to consider a mechanism for protecting collective interests in Brazil, which has been successfully operating for a long time. The article systematizes the constant problems of collective claims in Russia, summarizes the experience of Brazilian regulation and compares theoretical approaches to collective claims in Russia and Brazil. In the conclusion proposals are made on possible ways to improve Russian legislation regarding the regulation of class actions, also by means of using certain elements of the Brazilian regulation.
class action, collective action, diffuse rights, collective rights, homogeneous individual rights, res judicata.
Shaikhutdinova A.I. Group (Collective) Suits in Civil Proceedings of Russia and Brazil: Comparative Legal Study. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya = Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law, 2019, no. 5, pp. 108—124. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.12737/jflcl.2019.5.7
Abanina A. Yu. Procedural complicity and class action in accordance with the Arbitrazh procedure code of the RF: similarity and difference. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2011, no. 1, pp. 17—19. (In Russ.)
Abelha M. Public civil action and the environment. Rio de Janeiro, 2004. 336 p. (In Portuguese).
Abolonin G. O. Class actions in Russian state arbitration procedure — perspectives of development. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, 2011, no. 3, pp. 11—15. (In Russ.)
Abolonin G. O. Mass claims. Moscow, 2011. (In Russ.).
Abolonin G. O. Practical application of class actions in some countries of the world. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2015, no. 4, 207 p. (In Russ.)
Alekhina S. A., Tumanov D. A. Problems of groups’ protection in arbitrazh procedure. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2010, no. 1, pp. 38—43 (In Russ.)
Arbitrazh procedure. Ed. by M. K. Treushnikov. Moscow, 2017. 736 p. (In Russ.)
Arbitrazh procedure. Ed. by S. V. Nikitin. Moscow, 2017. 328 p. (In Russ.)
Baranov S. Yu. Class actions in civil and administrative procedure of the Russian Federation. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2016, no. 1. (In Russ.)
Bashlakov-Nikolaev I. V. Civil liability in the field of competition protection: the system of private and class actions. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2013, no. 7, pp. 75—82. (In Russ.)
Bataeva N. S. Enter Institute class action. Rossiyskaya yustitsi, 1998, no. 10, pp. 43—44. (In Russ.)
Bataeva N. S. Judicial protection of the rights and interests of an indefinite group of persons. Cand. diss. Moscow, 1998. 164 p. (In Russ.)
Borisov M. S. Theoretical and practical problems of legal force of a court decision. Cand. diss. Saratov, 2010. 28 p. (In Russ.)
Caldeira A. Procedural aspects of collective demands. Sao Paulo, 2006.
Cappelletti M. Governmental and Private Advocates for the Public Interest in Civil Litigation: A Comparative Study. Michigan Law Review, 1979, pp. 793—884.
Cappelletti M. Protection of collective and group interests in Civil proceedings. Revue internationale de droit compare, 1975, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 571—597. (In French)
Cappelletti M., Garth B. Finding an Appropriate Compromise: A Comparative Study of Individualistic Models and Group Rights in Civil Procedure. Civil Justice Quarterly, 1983. 510 p.
Chernyy D. S., Khizunova A. N., Rusetskiy P. K. Class action in Russia: “second chance” on the Concept. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2015, no. 1. (In Russ.)
Commentary to the Code of Arbitrazh procedure of the Russian Federation. Ed. by V. V. Yarkov. 3rd ed. Moscow, 2011. 1152 p. (In Russ.)
Commentary to the Code of Arbitrazh procedure of the Russian Federation. Ed. by P. V. Krasheninnikov. Moscow, 2013. 958 p. (In Russ.)
Cooper E. H. Class-Action Advice in the Form of Questions. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 2001, vol. 11, no. 2.
Cunha A. M. da. The evolution of collective actions in Brazil. Revista de Processo, 1995, no. 77, pp. 224—235. (In Portuguese)
Gidi A. P. Class Actions in Brazil — A Model for Civil Law Countries. American Journal of Comparative Law, 2003, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 311—408. University of Houston Law Center. No. 2006-A-11.
Gidi A. P. Group actions and “collective Amparo” in Brazil. The protection of diffuse, collective and homogeneous individual rights. Constitutional Procedural Law, 2001. (In Spanish)
Gidi A. P. Judged Thing and Litispendence in Collective Actions. Sao Paulo, 1995. Pp. 73—74. (In Portuguese).
Goncalves A. G., Pochmann L. Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDR) and Repetitive Appeals in the New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code. Available at: https://classactionblawg.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/repetitive-pleas-in-the-brazilian-new-civilprocedure-code.pdf.
Grinover A. P. Judged Thing and Litispendence in Collective Actions. 1979. (In Portuguese)
Grinover A. P. New Trends in Standing and Res Judicata in Collective Suits. General Report — Civil Law. Direito proessual comparado. Rio de Janeiro, 2007. 308 p.
Kaplan B. A prefatory note. Boston College Law Review, 1969, vol. 10, iss. 3.
Kolesov P. P. Class actions in the USA. Moscow, 2004. 101 p. (In Russ.)
Lenza P. General theory of public civil action. Sao Paulo, 2003. 447 p. (In Portuguese)
Maleshin D. Ya. Features of the Russian type of civil procedure. Works of the faculty of law of MSU. Moscow, 2008. Pp. 92—97. (In. Russ.)
Mazzilli H. N. The defence of diffuse rights in Juızo. Sao Paulo, 2001. (In Portuguese)
Mendes A. G. de C. Collective actions: in comparative and national law. Colecao Temas Atuais de Direito Processual Civil, 2002, vol. 4. (In Portuguese)
Mesquita B. In Consumer Action, Supplier Defense May Be Unhelpful. Revista do Advogado, 1990, no. 33. (In Portuguese)
Moreira B. A Legitimac ao para a Defesa two ‘diffuse interesses’ not Direito Brasileiro, Themes of Process Directorate. Terceira Series. São Paolo, 1984. (In Portuguese)
Nery J. N., Nery R. M. Commented code of Civil Procedure and extravagant civil procedural legislation in force. 6th ed. Sao Paulo, 2002. (In Portuguese)
Oliveira J. R, Waldemar M. Judicial protection of collective interests. Revista de Processo, 1984, no. 33, pp. 7—25. (In Portuguese)
Osakwe K. Class action in the modern American civil law. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2003, no. 3, pp. 137—147. (In Russ.)
Rozhkova M. A. Improvement of the procedure for consideration of cases on disputes related to business or other economic activity, management organization, membership or participation in the capital of organizations. Korporatsii i uchrezhdeniya. Ed. by M. A. Rozhkova. Moscow, 2007. Pp. 267—337. (In Russ.)
Skobelev V. P. Legal force of first instance judicial decisions in the civil procedure. Cand. diss. Minsk, 2005. 228 p. (In Russ.)
Streltsova Ye. G. On some difficulties of practical application of chapter 282 the Code of Arbitrazh procedure of the Russian Federation. Pravo i politika, 2010, no. 4. (In Russ.)
Taruffo M. Intervento. The Actions for the Protection of Collective Interest. Padova, 1976. (In Italian)
Terekhov V. V. The concept and content of the category “res judicata” in Russian and foreign civil procedure. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, 2014, no. 5, pp. 203—209 (In Russ.)
Vestal A. Procedural Aspects of res judicata / Preclusion. Toledo Law Review, 1969, vol. 1.
Yarkov V. V. Class action in the draft of unified Code of civil procedure. Vestnik ekonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii, 2015, no. 8, pp. 102—103. (In Russ.)
Yarkov V. V. New forms of claim protection of rights in civil procedure (group and indirect claims). Gosudarstvo i pravo, 1999, no. 9, pp. 32—40. (In Russ.)
Yarkov V. V. Protection of the rights of an indefinite group of persons in civil proceedings. Sudebnaya reforma: problemy grazhdanskoy yurisprudentsii. Yekaterinburg, 1996. Pp.73—103. (In Russ.)
Zagaynova S. K. Judicial acts in civil and arbitrazh proceedings: theoretical and applied problems. Dr. diss. Yekaterinburg, 2008. 485 p. (In Russ.).
Zandonai C. D. The effects of res judicata on class actions. Available at: http://www3.pucrs.br/pucrs/files/uni/poa/direito/graduacao/tcc/tcc2/trabalhos2009_1/camila_zandonai (accessed: 15.04.2018).
Zhuykov V. M. Code of Civil Procedure: procedure of entry into force: poryadok vvedeniya v deystvie. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, 2003, no. 2, pp. 26. (In Russ.).