скачать PDF
Authors : 1. Sergey B. Polyakov,
Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law
Perm State National Research University
2. Igor A. Gilev,
4-year student of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics
Perm State National Research University
Algorithms for determining the circumstances relevant for the case in the software for informational-technological support of judicial decisions
Objective: to create a computer program of information technology support for making motivated court decisions; to obtain constructive criticism of the grounds of and objections to claim presented in the software forms in order to improve it.
Methods: general dialectical-materialistic method in translating the law enforcement process into the language of information technology; analysis and synthesis of the law enforcement process; formal legal method for translating the requirements of the law and legal science to law enforcement into the program to be used by the judge and case participants; object-oriented approach to modeling; object-oriented programming methodology; relational approach to database design.
Results: a part of the computer program is created for making motivated court decisions on cases of claim proceedings under the rules of civil proceedings, solving the tasks of Article 148 of the Civil Procedural Code of the Russian Federation.
Scientific novelty: for the frst time, a part of a computer program is presented, which obliges the judge to take into account all the arguments of the parties regarding the circumstances to be established in the case, to draw conclusions on them and, in parallel with the conclusions and arguments of the judge for each choice, to make a reasoned decision. It seems that the workload of the courts can be eliminated by the software for making and motivating court decisions, which will signifcantly reduce the time for its production. The program has no analogues among the software solutions of legal disputes aimed at determining the circumstances relevant to the case.
Practical significance: the presented part of the program shows how a judge and case participants determine the legally signifcant circumstances of the lawsuit, which are subject to proving and justifcation. The generated list of circumstances forces, by the program logic, to make a reasoned conclusion about the proofs and legal relevance of each circumstance. The interim fndings determine the solution for the claim.
Keywords :
Legal facts; Circumstances of the case; Software; Judge; Case participants; Information system; Algorithm
Bibliography :
1. Sultanov A. R. Is unmotivated justice actually justice?, Rossiiskii sud'ya, 2017, No. 12, pp. 29–33 (in Russ.).
2. Sultanov A. R. Unconditional mischief, or Is complete copying of objections admissible as a judicial decision?, Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2017, No. 5, pp. 264–282 (in Russ.).
3. Sultanov A. R. Simplifcation of judicial procedure, or For whom the bell tolls?, Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2018, No. 5, pp. 67–90. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-5-67-90 (in Russ.).
4. Tumanov D. A., Strel'tsova E. G., Moiseev S. V., Alekhina S. A., Bardin L. N., Kazikhanova S. S., Nakhova E. A., Nevskii I.A., Nenashev M. M., Prokudina L. A., Smagina E. S., Sultanov A. R., Chistyakova O. P. Collective Legal Opinion of a draft law of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on changes in the Civil-Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, and Administrative Court Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and individual comments by researchers and practitioners, Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2018, No. 1, Vol. 8, pp. 256–345. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-1-256-345 (in Russ.).
5. Zimin V. M. Administrative-legal organization of informational provision of the functioning of general jurisdiction courts: PhD (Law) thesis, Khabarovsk, 2004, 178 р. (in Russ.).
6. Minaev O. A. Organization of informational provision of the functioning of general jurisdiction courts, Vestnik Saratovskoi gosudarstvennoi yuridicheskoi akademii, 2012, No. 4 (86), pp. 84–89 (in Russ.).
7. Sangadzhiev B. Topical issues of informational provision of courts as the basis for transparency of the Russian justice, Pravo i zhizn', 2011, No. 162, p. 224 (in Russ.).
8. Isamagomedov A. M., Aliev A. A., Umavov Sh. M. Features of organization and informational provision of a district (municipal) court, problems and ways of solution, Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal, 2016, No. 12 (103), pp. 157–160 (in Russ.).
9. Burdina E. V. Objectives of using informational technologies in the court sphere, Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika, 2010, No. 4, pp. 84–91 (in Russ.).
10. Chvirov V. V., Chizhov M. V. Improving judicial activity on the basis of informational and communicational technologies, Rossiiskoe pravosudie, 2018, No. 6 (146), pp. 59–69. DOI: 10.17238/issn2072-909x.2018.6.59-69 (in Russ.).
11. Reshetnyak V. I. Digital justice and court representation in civil and arbitration procedures, Advokat, 2011, No. 5, pp. 16–22 (in Russ.).
12. Reshetnyak V. I. Foreign experience of using informational technologies for organization of courts functioning, Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya, 2013, No. 2 (39), pp. 298–303 (in Russ.).
13. Reshetnyak V. I. Digital justice in the civil procedure in Australia, Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal, 2016, No. 3 (108), pp. 174–178 (in Russ.).
14. Korkmazova A. D. Using informational technologies for civil investigation, Rostovskii nauchnyi zhurnal, 2017, No. 5, pp. 450–456 (in Russ.).
15. Smagina E. S. Using informational technologies for as an alternative for large-scale changes in the civil procedural legislation
aimed at increasing the effciency of civil judicial procedure and optimizing the court load, Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2018, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 51–59. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2018-8-1-51-59 (in Russ.).
16. Manyakina A. V. Using informational technologies as a means of decreasing the court load, Yuridicheskii fakt, 2018, No. 27, pp. 4–6 (in Russ.).
17. Zarubina M. N., Novikova M. M. On the issue of the essence of digital justice in the Russian Federation, Administrator suda, 2017, No. 1, pp. 9–12 (in Russ.).
18. Panova I. V. On the issue of improving legislation in the sphere of informational provision of courts functioning in Ukraine, Vestnik Belgorodskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii, 2013, No. 1 (21), pp. 62–67 (in Russ.).
19. Kovalenko E. I. Topical issues of informational-legal provision of courts functioning, Aktual'nye voprosy razvitiya pravovoi informatizatsii v usloviyakh formirovaniya informatsionnogo obshchestva: sbornik nauchnykh statei, ed. E. I. Kovalenko, Minsk, 2017, pp. 277–285 (in Russ.).
20. Kinga Flaga-Gieruszyńska. E-justice as an example of informatization of civil procedure, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia Informatica, 2017, Vol. 45, pp. 15–24. DOI: 10.18276/si.2017.45-02
21. Luigi Lepore, Sabrina Pisano, Federico Alvino, Francesco Paolone. The Dark Side of E-justice Implementation. An Empirical Investigation of the Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Information System Success, Organizing for Digital Innovation, 2019. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-90500-6_5
22. McGinnis J. O., Pearce R. G. The great disruption: How machine intelligence will transform the role of lawyers in the delivery of legal services, Fordham Law Review, 2013, Vol. 82, pp. 3041.
23. Mills M. Artifcial Intelligence in Law: The State of Play 2016, Thomson Reuters Legal executive Institute, 2016.
24. Oard D. W., Webber W. Information retrieval for e-discovery, Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2013, Vol. 7, No. 2–3, pp. 99–237.
25. Baron J. R. Law in the age of exabytes: Some further thoughts on ‘information inflation’and current issues in e-discovery search, Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 9.
26. Maxwell K. T., Schafer B. Concept and Context in Legal Information Retrieval, JURIX, 2008, pp. 63–72.
27. Katz D. M., Bommarito II M. J., Blackman J. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States, PloS one, 2017, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. e0174698.
28. Alarie B., Niblett A., Yoon A. H. How artifcial intelligence will affect the practice of law, University of Toronto Law Journal, 2018, Vol. 68, No. supplement 1, pp. 106–124.
29. Markovic M. Rise of the Robot Lawyers?, Arizona Law Review, Forthcoming, 2018, pp. 18–66.
30. Polyakov S. B., Kolosova Yu. D. First experience of programming a court decision, Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2017, No. 2, pp. 131–144. DOI: 10.21202/1993-047X.11.2017.2.131-144 (in Russ.).
31. Virt N. Algorithms + data structures = software, Moscow, Mir, 1985 (in Russ.).
32. Pychkine E. V. An Introduction to the Microsoft .NET Framework Architecture and Tools. Supplementary materials for the crash course of software engineering, Finland, Central Ostrobothnia Polytechnics, 2004, 64 p.
33. Kerov L. A. Arrays and collections in C#, Komp'yuternye instrumenty v obrazovanii, 2005, No. 4, pp. 39–52 (in Russ.).
34. Dmitrieva M. V., Pavlova M. V. Elements of set theory. System: its structure and state, Komp'yuternye instrumenty v obrazovanii, 2014, No. 1, pp. 67–75 (in Russ.).
Citation :
Polyakov S. B., Gilev I. A. Algorithms for determining the circumstances relevant for the case in the software for informational-technological support of judicial decisions, Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 2019, vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1027–1044 (in Russ.). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.13.2019.1.1027-1044
Type of article : The scientific article
Date of receipt of the article :
05.12.2018
Date of adoption of the print :
11.02.2019
Date of online accommodation :
25.03.2019
