Тип публикации: статья из журнала
Год издания: 2024
Идентификатор DOI: 10.17223/15617793/501/24
Ключевые слова: civil law, cognitive science, decision-making environment, trade secret, know-how, copyright, extrapolation, autonomous regulation, statistical methods, legal technology, гражданское право, когнитивные науки, среда принятия решений, коммерческая тайна, ноу-хау, авторское право, экстраполяция, автономное регулирование, статистические методы, правовая технология
Аннотация: Вступив в переписку с разработчиками справочных правовых систем и изучив данные об их наполнении судебной практикой, авторы приходят к выводу, что разработка единого алгоритма отбора документов и его нормативное закрепление не требуются. Судебные акты, размещенные в профессиональных версиях систем, предназначенных для юристов, должПоказать полностьюны отражать весь спектр позиций судов. Для облегчения оценки перспектив спора пользователями таких систем следует сообщать, содержат ли они все документы определенного органа судебной власти или размещение осуществляется выборочно. Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов. The article aims to formulate the problem of the principles of filling reference legal systems with judicial acts and to propose ways to solve it in the existing conditions, when biased selection of judicial practice can lead to its impoverished understanding and incorrect legal decisions. The study was conducted using statistical methods, comparative and formal logical methods, and forecasting methods. During correspondence with the most famous Russian developers (copyright holders) of reference legal systems, information was received about the absence of algorithms for the formation of their databases containing judicial practice, or their unwillingness to provide relevant information. The counting and analysis of the number of acts of courts of general jurisdiction posted in reference legal systems confirmed the selective placement of decisions of first-level courts in all the studied systems. The existing decentralized mechanism for posting the texts of judicial acts, which involves linking to the official websites of specific courts of general jurisdiction without combining them on a single information resource and without the ability to search through the text of documents, actually means that today the most adequate and acceptable search tool to track the practice of interest in courts of general jurisdiction is reference legal systems. The authors come to the conclusion that the development of a unified algorithm for selecting judicial practice and its normative consolidation are not required. Determining the principles of such selection should remain the prerogative of copyright holders, guided by consumer demand and the results of their own scientific research, as well as research in scientific collaborations. Judicial acts presented in professional versions of systems intended for lawyers must reflect, within reasonable limits, the entire range of positions of the courts, even when these positions are not, in the opinion of the rights holder’s specialists, justified or consistent with the letter and spirit of the law. Court decisions that substantively diverge from the main direction of established practice, especially when they have not been tested in cassation courts, should be provided with separate accompanying commentaries by legal scholars. To facilitate the user’s overall understanding of dynamic jurisprudence and the prospects for a possible dispute, a legal reference system should reflect whether it contains all the documents of a particular judicial authority or whether they are posted selectively, as well as information on the average and maximum delay in posting documents. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.
Журнал: Вестник Томского государственного университета
Выпуск журнала: № 501
Номера страниц: 209-217
ISSN журнала: 15617793
Место издания: Томск
Издатель: Национальный исследовательский Томский государственный университет