Electronic documents in the Russian courts, as a criterion for the electronic maturity of Russia
Probably, it would be a great exaggeration to say that the transition of our country to the rails of electronic document management was strongly delayed. I would even say that he stalled seven or eight years ago and now he is stalling, without any special signs of improvement, just as a car moves forward, caught in a hopelessly flooded country road and pushed by passengers covered in mud from head to toe.
This was confirmed by the last-week webinar of Synerdocs for the subject “Electronic Documents in Court: From Submission to Decision” .
I myself liked the webinar as a whole, both in content and in conduct (there were private remarks that I sent to the organizers in private). The topic is quite relevant, the interest of the audience was visible, there were questions, the speakers answered. But at the same time, the presentation of the topic made at the event showed that it (the topic “Electronic Documents in Court”) continues - not for the first year already - to be in a very rudimentary state.
First you need to clarify: the webinar was not about the IT automation of the courts (not about the automation of judicial documents ”), but about providing the court with electronic documents of the parties (the plaintiff and the defendant). And it was not about the courts in general, but about business disputes in the Arbitration Court. That is, to put it somewhat simply, about the cases related to the performance of contractual obligations.
')
But even considering this limited (although quite wide) range of cases, it was possible to conclude that the situation with the use of electronic documents looks “not very”. This was evident because the webinar did not at all address the issue of evaluating the practice of using electronic documents in courts (in this case Arbitrage). It was said that electronic document filing mechanisms exist, but it was not said how they are used and whether they are used at all!
But at the same time, it was clear how narrowly we still understand the very concept of an “electronic document” (or even just a “document”). In fact, we include in it only what can be called “official regulated documents” - a certain set of documents, the requirements for which are quite clearly stated at the level of legislation (contracts, bills, etc.). And everything that is described in such requirements does not seem to be a document at all.
This situation was clearly visible in the answer of the speakers to my question addressed to them via chat. I asked, “How can you sue electronic documents like emails, audio and video recordings?”
He received a completely discouraging answer: "But these are not documents at all, they are evidence." That is, it turns out that our lawyers for some reason share the concepts of “document” and “evidence” (just for reference: the original translation of the Latin word “document” - “evidence, proof”). And then rather confusing explanations began (it was obvious that the speakers were not ready for such an issue) - probably, they (e-mails) should be printed out, it would be good to notarize. In short, it was clear from the responses that our courts are not ready to work with the use of such important electronic documents as e-mail, the procedures are not prescribed.
“What do you want - we are just learning the use of electronic documents!” - I have heard this answer for many years about complaints about the use of electronic documents in our courts.
What I would like, I know for a long time. I saw this on a very specific example 17 years ago.
In the summer of 2000, a young man of 27 years old arrived in Moscow from the USA, four years before that, after graduating from Moscow State University, he left to work overseas. One of the goals of the visit was "to sort out matters of the heart." Two weeks of disassembly ended with the fact that he rushed to his classmate in an emergency way (I am here omitting the long history of their relationship). He went back, and the young wife submitted to the US Embassy documents for a visa to travel to her husband. And she was denied a visa, referring to the fact that they entered into a fictitious marriage (namely, to arrange her transfer to America). Re-apply for a visa was possible only after three months. Three months later, my husband again came to Moscow to go for an interview with his wife. But at the same time, he also brought a CD, on which all their electronic correspondence over the past seven years was recorded (how the e-mail appeared) and which he will attach to the documents handed over to the embassy.
I don’t know how much this CD helped in a positive decision. But another thing is important here - the consular officials accepted the disk as a document. They did not require printing the letters on paper, to notarize them. They simply accepted them for consideration. It was in the year 2000. We have not yet arrived at such work with electronic documents.
This was confirmed by the last-week webinar of Synerdocs for the subject “Electronic Documents in Court: From Submission to Decision” .
I myself liked the webinar as a whole, both in content and in conduct (there were private remarks that I sent to the organizers in private). The topic is quite relevant, the interest of the audience was visible, there were questions, the speakers answered. But at the same time, the presentation of the topic made at the event showed that it (the topic “Electronic Documents in Court”) continues - not for the first year already - to be in a very rudimentary state.
First you need to clarify: the webinar was not about the IT automation of the courts (not about the automation of judicial documents ”), but about providing the court with electronic documents of the parties (the plaintiff and the defendant). And it was not about the courts in general, but about business disputes in the Arbitration Court. That is, to put it somewhat simply, about the cases related to the performance of contractual obligations.
')
But even considering this limited (although quite wide) range of cases, it was possible to conclude that the situation with the use of electronic documents looks “not very”. This was evident because the webinar did not at all address the issue of evaluating the practice of using electronic documents in courts (in this case Arbitrage). It was said that electronic document filing mechanisms exist, but it was not said how they are used and whether they are used at all!
But at the same time, it was clear how narrowly we still understand the very concept of an “electronic document” (or even just a “document”). In fact, we include in it only what can be called “official regulated documents” - a certain set of documents, the requirements for which are quite clearly stated at the level of legislation (contracts, bills, etc.). And everything that is described in such requirements does not seem to be a document at all.
This situation was clearly visible in the answer of the speakers to my question addressed to them via chat. I asked, “How can you sue electronic documents like emails, audio and video recordings?”
He received a completely discouraging answer: "But these are not documents at all, they are evidence." That is, it turns out that our lawyers for some reason share the concepts of “document” and “evidence” (just for reference: the original translation of the Latin word “document” - “evidence, proof”). And then rather confusing explanations began (it was obvious that the speakers were not ready for such an issue) - probably, they (e-mails) should be printed out, it would be good to notarize. In short, it was clear from the responses that our courts are not ready to work with the use of such important electronic documents as e-mail, the procedures are not prescribed.
“What do you want - we are just learning the use of electronic documents!” - I have heard this answer for many years about complaints about the use of electronic documents in our courts.
What I would like, I know for a long time. I saw this on a very specific example 17 years ago.
In the summer of 2000, a young man of 27 years old arrived in Moscow from the USA, four years before that, after graduating from Moscow State University, he left to work overseas. One of the goals of the visit was "to sort out matters of the heart." Two weeks of disassembly ended with the fact that he rushed to his classmate in an emergency way (I am here omitting the long history of their relationship). He went back, and the young wife submitted to the US Embassy documents for a visa to travel to her husband. And she was denied a visa, referring to the fact that they entered into a fictitious marriage (namely, to arrange her transfer to America). Re-apply for a visa was possible only after three months. Three months later, my husband again came to Moscow to go for an interview with his wife. But at the same time, he also brought a CD, on which all their electronic correspondence over the past seven years was recorded (how the e-mail appeared) and which he will attach to the documents handed over to the embassy.
I don’t know how much this CD helped in a positive decision. But another thing is important here - the consular officials accepted the disk as a document. They did not require printing the letters on paper, to notarize them. They simply accepted them for consideration. It was in the year 2000. We have not yet arrived at such work with electronic documents.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/339096/
All Articles