CasusLegalHigher-court case-law corpus
← All reviewsHome
On 21 May 2026, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 15 “On Preparing Civil Cases for Trial.” Clause 68 declared the previous clarification on this issue invalid, Resolution No. 11 of 24 June 2008. The new Resolution brings the rules for preparing a case into line with the current version of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and, for the first time in the practice of the higher courts, addresses the use of artificial intelligence technologies. The full text of the Resolution is published on the official website of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
| Parameter | № 11/2008 | № 15/2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Number of clauses | 37 | 68 |
| Organization | Continuous numbering without headings | Thematic sections with headings |
| Understanding of preparation | “An independent stage of civil proceedings” | “A set of interconnected procedural actions” in courts of first instance and higher courts (Clause 1) |
The new Resolution is divided into sections: general provisions; actions of the judge; determination of the persons involved; submission, disclosure and obtaining of evidence; the preliminary hearing; and completion of preparation. This structure makes the document more convenient for targeted application.
The provisions listed below were absent from the 2008 Resolution because the relevant institutions were introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation later or had not previously been clarified.
| New provision | Content | Provision / clause |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial intelligence | The obligation of parties to notify the court that the factual information submitted was obtained using AI technologies | 42 |
| Simplified proceedings | Specific features of preparation; mandatory preparation when transitioning to the general rules of contentious proceedings; no preliminary hearing | 2, 13, 55 |
| Protection of the rights of a group of persons | Publication of an invitation to join the claim, verification that the group meets the statutory requirements, and consequences of non-compliance | 38, 39, 40, 62 |
| Conciliation procedures | The judge’s duty to facilitate conciliation, an explanation of the types of procedures (including mediation and judicial conciliation), and an adjournment for conciliation | 12, 14, 24, 25 |
| Videoconferencing and web conferencing | Interview and preliminary hearing conducted remotely | 17, 22, 57 |
| Bankruptcy checks and transfers between systems | Checking whether bankruptcy proceedings exist; preparation in a case transferred by a commercial court; transfer to a commercial court | 4, 18, 30 |
| Information from state information systems | The court’s right to obtain data from the Unified State Register of Real Estate, the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, mail-tracking systems and other state information systems, including through electronic interaction | 45 |
| Advance disclosure of evidence | The obligation to send evidence to other persons, with confirmation, before the hearing date | 41 |
| Counteracting abuse of rights | Clarification of the consequences of abuse; allocation of costs and compensation for wasted time (Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) to the party acting in bad faith | 20 |
| State secrets and foreign agents | Specific features of preparation in cases involving state secrets; restrictions on the persons who may act as representatives | 5 |
| Disputes concerning children | Determination of the children’s place of residence and the procedure for exercising parental rights pending entry into force of the judgment (Part 6.1 of Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) | 16, 61 |
| Application on appeal | The preparation rules apply when the case is reconsidered (Part 1 of Article 327 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) | 6 |
| Composition of the court | Preparation by the reporting judge, assignment through an automated system, and substitutability in urgent cases | 16 |
A number of earlier positions have been retained in substance but set out differently.
Preparation “taking into account actions previously performed” instead of “from the very beginning.” The 2008 Resolution required preparation to be conducted anew, “from the very beginning,” when an improper defendant was replaced or a third party asserting independent claims entered the proceedings (point 23, 24 No. 11/2008). The new Resolution adopts a more economical approach: in the listed cases, preparation is conducted taking into account procedural actions previously performed, and the judge performs additional actions where necessary (point 4 No. 15/2026). This appears to be aimed at reducing procedural duplication.
Understanding preparation. The previous Resolution described preparation as an independent stage of the proceedings. The new one defines it as a set of interrelated actions and expressly extends the rules to courts of higher instances (Clause 1, 6).
Completion of preparation and transition to the hearing. The mechanism for opening a court hearing immediately after the preliminary hearing with the parties’ consent is described in detail (Part 2 of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, point 65). The 2008 Resolution did not describe this procedure in detail.
Questioning (interview) of the parties. The format and procedure have been clarified: it may be conducted remotely, consecutively or simultaneously, repeatedly where necessary, with minutes being taken (point 21, 22, 23).
Updating the citation framework. The consequences of incorrectly determining the composition of the persons involved in the case are correlated with the current rules on mandatory reversal on appeal and cassation (point 4 of Part 4 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, point 4 of Part 4 of Article 379.7 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; point 10). Greater emphasis is placed on the need to take into account the legal positions of the Constitutional Court, the Plenum and Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and case-law reviews (point 9).
Provisions not reproduced in the new Resolution. Certain ancillary clarifications from 2008 were not expressly repeated, including the indication that questions of a legal nature may not be put to an expert and the statement that a court may not, on its own initiative, take measures to secure a claim. The absence of these phrases in itself does not mean that the corresponding rules arising from the law have changed; the question of their application will probably remain a matter for case law.
Continuity with the previous act can be seen in most of the basic provisions:
Paragraph 42 contains a provision not previously found in Plenum resolutions: persons participating in the case who submit to the court information about facts obtained using artificial intelligence technologies must inform the court of this. The provision appears in the section on evidence, alongside the rules on its relevance, admissibility and reliability.
The wording is concise, leaving several questions open that case law will probably have to clarify:
These circumstances explain why the provision is already perceived as open to debate. At the same time, the inclusion of artificial intelligence issues in procedural clarifications reflects a response to the spread of these technologies in the handling of evidentiary material.
The assessment below is preliminary; the actual effect will depend on how the lower courts receive the clarifications.
A more detailed and structured version appears capable of supporting consistency in applying the preparation rules, particularly with respect to institutions previously not covered by the clarifications (simplified proceedings, class actions and conciliatory procedures). The shift to an approach “taking into account actions previously performed” may, it appears, reduce procedural duplication when the composition of the persons involved changes.
The inclusion of digital tools (obtaining information from state information systems and remote formats) largely formalizes established practice, so its impact here will probably be primarily organizational. The provision on artificial intelligence, by contrast, does not rule out a period of uncertainty: its boundaries and consequences will apparently be clarified through enforcement practice and possibly subsequent clarifications.
Overall, the document appears primarily consolidating and updating rather than changing the direction of regulation. Its impact on practice may cautiously be expected to be gradual rather than abrupt.