On the issue of the criteria for the normative consolidation of the special powers of a representative in the civil process

Pleshanov Alexander Gennad'evich PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of Civil Procedure; Ural State Law University named after V.F. Yakovlev 620137, Russia, Sverdlovsk region, Yekaterinburg, Komsomolskaya str., 21, office 404 algenp0911@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The special powers of the representative, along with the general powers, as well as duties, are an integral element of his procedural and legal status. The issues of the legal status of a representative in civil proceedings were investigated in their works by such scientists as L.V. Voitovich, I.M. Zaitsev, V.P. Ivakin, I.M. Ilyinskaya, L.F. Lesnitskaya, Ya.A. Rosenberg, R.A. Sidorov, K.I. Sklovsky, E.G. Tarlo, S.A. Khalatov, V.M. Sherstyuk. At the same time, the issue of the criteria for the normative consolidation of the special powers of the representative deserves attention as an independent problem with both theoretical and practical significance.

Summarizing the opinions of scientists, it can be stated that special powers in the theory of judicial representation are understood as such powers of a representative, each of which must be separately stipulated in the power of attorney issued to him ^{[3, pp. 21-23; 10, pp. 150-151; 11, pp. 106-110]}. The regulatory regulation of this element of the legal status of a representative is carried out by establishing a closed list of powers (art. 54 of the CPC RF, art. 62 of the APC RF, art. 56 of the CAS RF). General powers, on the contrary, arise from a representative by virtue of law, and therefore do not require to be indicated in the power of attorney. Using the term "authority" in relation to a representative, the legislator emphasizes the non-identity of the concepts of "authority" and "right" (in a subjective sense), which is rightly noted in the literature ^{[1, p. 213; 2, p. 107-110]}. The authority of a procedural representative is a kind of symbiosis of the representative's subjective right to perform procedural actions on behalf of and in the interests of the represented person and the obligation to perform these actions ^{[11, p. 102]}.

Among the factors determining the relevance of the issue of the criteria for securing the special powers of a representative, the following should be mentioned: a) a significant increase in the importance of the institution of representation in general and professional representation in particular in the context of the strengthening of the principle of competition in the Russian civil procedure; b) legislative consolidation of new rights of the parties, the question of their species in the context of the status of a judicial representative earlier in the domestic procedural theory was not considered (the right to choose a conciliation procedure, the right to transfer a case from court to settlement in the framework of mediation, the right to file an application on the issue of court costs incurred in connection with the consideration of the case, the right to file a motion for summary proceedings, and some others); c) the need to develop a unified approach to determine the range of special powers in all three types of civil proceedings (civil, arbitration, administrative).

In this regard, it is important to consider the state of legal regulation of the composition of special powers using such research methods as analysis, synthesis, formal and logical method, as well as the method of interpretation of legal norms, bearing in mind that these methods allow an objective and comprehensive assessment of the state of legal regulation of the issue, which includes the norms of various institutions. civil procedure law (mainly contained in the chapters 4, 5, 14.1, 39, 41, 41.1, 42 GPC).

It is noteworthy that during the period of validity (from the moment of adoption of the procedural codes to the present), the articles of the procedural codes devoted to the powers of the representative have never been subjected to any adjustment, be it an amendment or addition.

On the one hand, stability in legal regulation is justified, because the procedural form, by definition, absorbs all the best that has been accumulated by law enforcement practice over the long historical period of the existence of justice as a function of the state ^{[4, p. 4]}. On the other hand, the composition of the representative's powers, requiring consolidation in a power of attorney, must be adjusted from time to time at least in view of the consolidation of the new procedural rights of the parties and other persons involved in the case, whose interests may be defended in court by representatives. Otherwise, there is a risk that regulatory stability will turn into stagnation, which cannot be assessed positively. An equally significant factor determining the need to adjust the normatively established list of special powers of a representative is the ongoing unification of procedural legislation. The issue of the special powers of a representative is undoubtedly one of the issues requiring uniform regulation in all three civil proceedings — civil, arbitration and administrative — since there are simply no objective grounds for differentiated regulation of this issue. In reality, there are a number of unjustified discrepancies in the regulation of the issue under consideration.

Optimal regulation of the composition of special powers should be based on clear, verified (both from a theoretical and practical point of view) criteria by which the legislator classifies certain powers of a representative as special. At the same time, some powers may be subject to several criteria at once, which, in our opinion, should be considered as a factor additionally indicating the need for their inclusion in the special ones.

The administrative nature of the representative's actions as a criterion for the normative consolidation of the special powers of the representative.

Such a factor as the administrative nature of the rights of the parties plays, perhaps, a leading role in determining the range of special powers of the representative. According to T. V. Sakhnova, the administrative rights of the parties (art. 39 of the CPC) have a substantive legal object, and therefore arise from the representative by special order of the party expressed in a power of attorney, and each administrative right is indicated separately ^{[8, pp. 226, 235]}.

A simple comparison of the list of special powers of the representative, stipulated in Article 54 of the CPC, and the administrative acts of the parties provided for in Article 39 of the CPC, allows us to draw the following conclusion: Six of the seven administrative acts are included by the legislator in the list of special powers of the representative and at the same time make up almost half of the total volume of such powers (a kind of "backbone" of special powers). These are the plaintiff's rights to change the basis or subject of the claim, reduce the amount of claims, abandon the claim, the defendant's right to recognize the claim, the right of the parties to end the case by an amicable agreement. The nature of the right to receive the awarded property or money is similar: the recoverer, based on the principle of dispositivity, is free to refuse to receive what the court has awarded in his favor. In this sense, the execution of the decision is also within the scope of the plaintiff's (recoverer's) free disposal.

Thus, beyond the scope of the list of special powers of the representative, the legislator reserves only one administrative right of the plaintiff — the right to increase the amount of claims. There is certainly logic in this approach: if an increase in the amount of claims leads to an improvement in the position of the represented person, then a decrease leads to its deterioration (compared to that which took place at the time of filing the claim). It would seem that this state of affairs can be the basis for a uniform regulation of the issue in civil and arbitration proceedings. However, Article 62 of the APC does not include among the special powers of a representative either a reduction or an increase in the amount of claims, which is difficult to agree with, especially given the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, according to which, by exercising the right to reduce the amount of claims provided for in part 1 of Article 49 of the APC, the plaintiff actually waives part of the claim; uncertainty as to whether there has been a reduction in the amount of claims or a partial waiver of the claim, the courts should be guided by the wording of the relevant plaintiff's statement, taking into account the plaintiff's right to independently dispose of procedural rights and due awareness of the various consequences of the use of these procedural institutions (paragraph 29 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2021 No. 46 "On the Application of Arbitration the Procedural Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the court of first instance").

We believe that the right to increase the amount of claims does not require inclusion in the list of special powers, since an increase in the amount of claims does not carry any risks of negative consequences for the principal if the representative commits this procedural action. The need to pay an additional state fee in accordance with the increased amount of claims can hardly be considered a negative consequence, since the additional financial costs incurred in this way in satisfying the claim in full will be compensated to the client who won the case in the order of distribution of court costs (art. 98 of the CPC).

In the context of the administrative nature of the rights, the plaintiff's right to file an additional claim deserves special attention. From a formal legal point of view, there is no such administrative right in the civil procedure process, since it is not provided for by any of the current procedural codes (art. 39 CPC, art. 49 APC, art. 46 CAS). At the same time, neither procedural science ^{[5, p. 159] [9, p. 22-24]} nor judicial practice (paragraph 28 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 23, 2021 No. 46 "On the application of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation when considering cases in the court of first Instance") quite reasonably consider the presentation of an additional claim as a form of amendment the subject of the claim or as a type of increase in the amount of claims. At the same time, in terms of the significance of the consequences for the plaintiff, the presentation of an additional claim is quite comparable to a change in the subject of the claim: both administrative acts are aimed at specifying the limits of the requested judicial protection. In this regard, in our opinion, it would be reasonable to consolidate the plaintiff's right to file an additional claim as an independent form of disposal of legal remedies and to include this right in the list of special powers of the representative by making additions to the relevant articles of the CPC, APC and CAS.

The right to conclude a settlement agreement (including upon the results of the judicial reconciliation procedure) is traditionally included in the special powers of the representative. In our opinion, this approach expresses the recognition of the compliance of this authority with all three criteria of special powers. Indeed, in the conditions under which the parties enter into an amicable agreement, their bilateral expression of will is expressed by disposing of the subject of the dispute (administrative nature) and at the same time by ending the process without a court decision (influence on the progress of the case), as well as accepting the consequences in the form of the impossibility of re-applying to court with an identical claim in the future (the significance of the consequences of the representative's actions for the principal).

The question arises: should the special powers of the representative include the right to conclude a mediation agreement, which is reached as a result of the transfer of the dispute for settlement in the mediation procedure after the initiation of the case in court? In our opinion, this question should be answered in the affirmative at the legislative level, despite the fact that there is currently no such answer in both the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Agro-Industrial Complex of the Russian Federation.

Perhaps the legislator deliberately did not address this issue, bearing in mind that the scope of a representative's powers in the mediation procedure should not be regulated by procedural law, since the power of attorney on the basis of which he acts in this procedure is not judicial in nature. In other words, a power of attorney to perform a legally significant action is sufficient to carry out representation in the framework of a mediation procedure (art. 185 of the Civil Code).

However, according to the current Russian law on mediation, there is a difference between a mediation agreement reached by the parties as a result of a mediation procedure conducted without referring the dispute to a court or arbitration court, and a mediation agreement reached by the parties as a result of a mediation procedure conducted after the dispute was referred to a court or arbitration court. Moreover, the first of these types of agreements, according to the legislator, is a civil law transaction aimed at establishing, changing or terminating the rights and obligations of the parties. With regard to the second type of mediation agreement, the law grants the parties the right to ask the court to approve such an agreement as a settlement (Part 3 of Article 12 of Federal Law No. 193-FZ dated 27.07.2010 "On an alternative Dispute Settlement Procedure involving an Intermediary (Mediation Procedure)", hereinafter referred to as the Mediation Law).

Then the following question arises: does the representative, who, in accordance with the power of attorney, has the right to conclude a mediation agreement, apply for approval of this agreement as a settlement, or should the authority to submit such a request be specified separately in the power of attorney?

As can be seen from the above rule, the application of mediation in relation to a dispute that has already been submitted to the court serves as the basis for special regulation on the approval of a mediation agreement. But in this case, it would be logical to take into account the relationship between mediation and the judicial process in a particular dispute and when deciding on the nature of the representative's authority to conclude a mediation agreement and submit it for approval as a justice of the peace.

In our opinion, the following solution to these interrelated issues would be optimal: the right to conclude a mediation agreement based on the results of a dispute settlement submitted to the court arises only if there is a direct reference to it in the power of attorney; specifying in the power of attorney the representative's right to conclude a mediation agreement also means that he has the right to request court approval of this agreement as a global one. If the representative leading the case in court was not given the right to conclude a mediation agreement in connection with the transfer of the dispute for settlement under the mediation procedure, then it seems that the right to request approval of such an agreement as a settlement should be separately stipulated in the power of attorney.

In our opinion, the issue of the authority to conclude an agreement on the conduct of mediation procedures should be resolved in a different way (Article 8 of the Law on Mediation). This agreement does not affect the fate of the process initiated in court on a dispute submitted for settlement using mediation procedures, is concluded after the dispute is transferred from court to mediation and is of an organizational nature. Therefore, it would be incorrect from a legal point of view to classify this authority as one of the special rights of a representative arising on the basis of a judicial power of attorney.

The consequences of the representative's actions for the principal as a criterion for the regulatory consolidation of the representative's special powers.

The relationship between the nature of the representative's powers and the possible consequences of his actions is beyond doubt: the more serious the consequences, the higher the likelihood of regulatory recognition of the special status of the authority. This dependence can be traced, of course, in the administrative rights of the parties, attributed to the special powers of the representative. However, it is not limited to these powers only.

This dependence seems to be expressed in the following powers of the representative, as set out in art. 54 of the CPC: the right to sign a statement of claim, transfer the dispute to an arbitration court, file a counterclaim, as well as the right to transfer authority to another person (transfer of trust). At first glance, these powers have nothing in common. However, upon closer examination, it is possible to identify some common features, namely: they all assume the positioning of the principal on issues that depend on the solution.: a) the effectiveness of the representative's activities to protect the interests of the client; b) the results of the process (outcome of the case). The transfer of a dispute to an arbitration court is an expression of the principal's freedom to choose the form of protection within the framework of a case that has already arisen in court between a state judicial and an arbitration one. Giving a representative the opportunity to file a counterclaim means giving him the right to use the most effective remedy against a claim, which can have a radical impact on the outcome of the initial claim process for both the principal (defendant) and the plaintiff. Finally, the possibility of a transfer of trust reflects the position of the principal on the possibility of conducting his business by a person chosen by the representative.

Separately, I would like to focus on the powers associated with the signing of certain types of procedural appeals. Prior to the adoption of the current CPC, such powers in civil proceedings were not considered by the legislator as special (art. 46 CPC RSFSR). The Procedural codes of 2002, followed by the CAS, follow a single approach: a special indication in the power of attorney requires both the right to file a claim and the right to sign a statement of claim. Moreover, this approach, as follows from the systematic interpretation of Articles 54 of the CPC, Article 62 of the CPC and Article 56 of the CAS and the norms governing the content of complaints (appeal, cassation and supervisory), also applies to appeals to higher courts: in order to file a complaint, a representative must confirm that he has the right to appeal court decisions, and for signing a complaint is the right to sign the relevant complaint (Part 3 of art. 322, Part 5 of art. 378, Part 3 of art. 390.5, Part 3 of art. 391.3 of the CPC and the relevant articles of the APC and CAS). The issue is similarly regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Belarus No. 359-Z dated March 11, 2024, hereinafter referred to as the KGS RB (Articles 97, Part 7 of Article 561, paragraph 2 of Part 4 of Article 593, paragraph 2 of Part 4 of Article 617). It seems that this approach is justified precisely from the point of view of the significance of the possible consequences of the representative's actions in signing these appeals for the principal, especially when it comes to a general power of attorney. When registering the representative's powers with the help of a one-time power of attorney, the principal's retention of the right to sign an appeal to the court hardly makes any practical sense. If the representative trusts the representative to file a specific claim, then it is logical to assume that he trusts the representative to sign the relevant statement of claim. The situation is somewhat different with the general power of attorney, which is issued to conduct all or some part of the cases on behalf of the representative within its validity period. When issuing such a power of attorney, the powers to file a claim and sign a statement of claim are abstract in nature (not related to a specific civil case) and the principal can choose between granting two powers simultaneously and granting only the authority to file a claim, reserving the right to sign the statement of claim, and hence the final decision on the filing of a claim, bearing in mind This means that it will be practically impossible for a representative to file a statement of claim that has not been signed by the principal. Thus, with regard to the general power of attorney, granting a representative two powers at once (both to file a claim and to sign a statement of claim) can be considered as an expression of high confidence, and, conversely, reserving the right to sign a statement of claim for oneself as an additional guarantee of making a decision agreed with the principal on the issue of exercising the right to file a claim. A similar logic applies to the powers to appeal a court decision and sign a corresponding complaint (appeal, cassation, supervisory review).

However, in our opinion, several other powers fall under the criterion of the significance of the consequences of the representative's actions for the principal, which are currently not included by the legislator in the list of special powers of the representative.

First of all, in this regard, it is necessary to mention the right to submit a dispute for settlement within the framework of a conciliation procedure. The very possibility of the parties using civil mediation has existed for a long time, and since 2019 it has been an element of a broader right of the parties — the right to use a conciliation procedure, which covers the procedures of negotiation, judicial reconciliation and mediation (art. 153.3 CPC, art. 138.2 APC, art. 137.3 CAS). However, the regulatory consolidation of this right and all three procedures that make it up had no effect on the composition of the special powers of the representative. Meanwhile, the transfer of a dispute to an arbitration court and the transfer of a dispute to a settlement within the framework of a conciliation procedure have a common origin as derivatives of the right to choose an alternative dispute settlement procedure after the initiation of a case in court. In this regard, it seems that both of these rights should be recognized by the special powers of the representative. Thus, according to the legislation of the Republic of Belarus, the right to conclude an agreement on the use of mediation, through which all or individual disputes are transferred to settlement through mediation, requires a special clause in the power of attorney (paragraph 13, part 2, Article 97 of the CGS RB). The difference in the procedural consequences of the application of these powers (leaving a claim without consideration when referring a dispute to an arbitration court and postponing proceedings in connection with the transfer of a dispute to a conciliation procedure), in our opinion, should not be decisive for determining the status of the powers in question as special. It is of fundamental importance that the exercise of both powers leads to the settlement of the dispute outside the judicial process and, accordingly, without a court decision. It is this consequence that seems to determine the importance of the powers in question from the point of view of the principal, and, therefore, he should have the last word in deciding whether to grant these powers to his contractual representative.

At the same time, based on considerations of reasonable sufficiency, it seems that the authority to refer a dispute for settlement using two of the three procedures provided for by law — judicial conciliation and mediation - should be of a special nature. The conduct of negotiations by a representative, as the least formalized conciliation procedure, is covered by the representative's authority to conduct business. After all, in fact, negotiations are not much different from discussing the terms of an amicable agreement, the possibility of participation in which (discussing) a representative does not require additional authority. The situation is different with judicial reconciliation and mediation, that is, the procedures are objectively more complex both from the organizational point of view (involving a neutral entity for settlement) and the procedural one itself (the need for a petition from the parties, the timing, the interaction between the involved mediator, mediator and the court, etc.).

In our opinion, the right to sign an application for securing a claim deserves to be classified as special. It is noteworthy in this regard that in the Agribusiness Code this authority is classified by the legislator as special (Part 2 of Article 62 of the Agribusiness Code), but not in the CPC (Article 54 of the CPC). A slightly different version of regulation has been consolidated in the CAS: this Code includes among the special ones the right to request the application of preliminary protection measures in an administrative claim (the term "preliminary protection measures" of the CAS means nothing more than measures to secure a claim). In other words, according to the CAS, a special indication in the power of attorney is necessary for the right to file an application for taking security measures for an administrative claim, and not to sign it. It seems that the approach used in the agro-industrial complex is more justified: after all, filing an application can be considered as an authority derived from the right to file a claim, and the right to sign an application emphasizes the importance of the very issue on which the application is being submitted, signed by a representative.

Speaking about the subjective procedural rights relatively recently enshrined in the CPC, it is impossible not to mention the right to file an application for reimbursement of court costs (art. 103.1 CPC) and the right to consent to the consideration of the case in a simplified procedure when the initiative to apply it comes from the court or the party in the case of Part 2 of art. 232.2 CPC). As for the first power, the issue of the mechanism of its implementation has remained controversial in science for a long time, however, a campaign has received legislative implementation, according to which, in order to recover compensation for court costs, when this issue has not been resolved in the final judicial act on the case, it is not necessary to file an independent claim, and therefore to initiate a new process. However, the implementation mechanism itself does not affect the essence and significance of the issue for which this mechanism is being established. We believe that the issue of collecting compensation for court costs is one of the issues of importance to the participants in the process, and therefore, the representative's authority to sign a statement on the issue of court costs incurred in connection with the consideration of the case in court should be considered as special, requiring direct indication in the power of attorney.

The right to consent to the consideration of a case under the rules of simplified proceedings, of course, has a dispositive nature, that is, it reflects the freedom of the party to choose the most convenient procedure for considering the case. However, the significance of the consequences of its implementation for the principal can hardly be considered sufficient to consolidate this authority as a special one. Moreover, it is possible to state the preponderance of positive consequences (minimizing the volume of procedural actions performed, and hence legal costs due to the impossibility of performing a number of actions) over negative ones (failure, as a general rule, to make a reasoned decision, reduction of the time limit for appeal, exclusion from the case file of evidence submitted in violation of the time limit set by the court, in the absence of valid reasons for such violation). Therefore, we believe that in order for the representative of the party to consent to the consideration of the case in a simplified procedure, it would be sufficient for the representative to pre-coordinate the position on this issue with his principal in writing, with the attachment of a supporting document to the case file.

Similarly, it seems that the issue of transferring the case to another court should be resolved at the location of most of the evidence. To carry out such a transfer, the law requires the expression of the will of both parties, expressed in the form of a petition (paragraph 2, part 2, Article 33 of the CPC). The right to file petitions is one of the general powers of a representative (art. 35 of the CPC). Given the connection between the transfer of the case to another court on the basis in question and the obligation to prove, and, consequently, with the principle of competition, it would be appropriate to consider the preliminary agreement of the representative of the position on this issue with his principal as a prerequisite for submitting a petition in accordance with paragraph 2 of Part 2 of art. 33 of the CPC.

The influence of the representative's actions on the emergence and movement of the case as a criterion for the normative consolidation of the special powers of the representative.

The procedural actions of the parties, through which the movement of the case is ensured, along with administrative powers, are traditionally considered as the main manifestations of the principle of dispositivity ^{[8, p. 226]}. This refers to the right to file a claim, the right to appeal court decisions, and the right to file a writ of execution. These actions clearly show the role of the will of the participants in the process and, above all, the parties, both in the emergence of the process and in its transition to the stages following the proceedings in the court of first instance, as well as in the completion of the process without a court decision. The very possibility of influencing the course of the process acts as a kind of derivative of interest in the outcome of the case, the existence of which is recognized by both the legislator and the procedural doctrine only for persons involved in the case, whose circle is defined in art. 34 of the CPC. In this regard, it is logical that the legislator provides for the emergence of such powers from a representative only on the basis of a direct indication of them in the power of attorney.

However, the impact on the movement of the case (its occurrence) is also manifested in such powers as the right to file an application for a court order, the right to file an application for compensation for violations of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execute a judicial act within a reasonable time, as well as the right to file an application for review of a court order. due to newly discovered or new circumstances. In this regard, it seems natural for the first two of the listed powers of a representative to be recognized as special by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2016 No. 62 "On certain issues of Application by Courts of the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on Writ proceedings"; paragraph 26 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 29.03.2016 No. 11 "On certain issues arising in the consideration of cases on the award of compensation for violation of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execute a judicial act within a reasonable time").

The right to file a counterclaim, although it is related to the right to file a claim, in our opinion, cannot be considered in the context of influencing the progress of the case, since it has a different purpose — to protect the defendant against the claim. Therefore, in our opinion, the consequences of the representative's actions for the principal were crucial for the inclusion of this authority in the list of Articles 54 of the CPC. Similarly, the issue should be resolved in the Agribusiness Code of the Russian Federation, which, contrary to this logic, does not include the right to file a counterclaim among the special powers of the representative (Part 2 of art. 62).

Indirect influence on the progress of the case is characteristic of the right of a party to object to the consideration of the case in court due to the agreement of the parties on the consideration of the dispute by the arbitral tribunal (paragraph 6 of art. 222 of the CPC). According to current legislation, for a representative to have this authority, no direct indication of it is required in the power of attorney (art. 54 of the CPC). Nevertheless, the purpose of the objection, according to the legislator, is to leave the claim without consideration, that is, to end the process without making a decision. Thus, there is a relationship between the continuation of the process and the will of the party or its representative. At the same time, there is no need to talk about the negative consequences for the principal as a result of raising an objection in this case. The only effect that may have a negative connotation for the principal in this case is the emergence of uncertainty about the prospects for the plaintiff to re-file an identical claim in the general procedure after the circumstances that served as the basis for leaving the application without consideration (Part 2 of art. 223 of the CPC) are eliminated. However, this kind of consequence cannot serve as a basis for giving the representative's authority in question the status of a special one. It seems that prior approval with the principal, in order to avoid his negative reaction to the occurrence of the described uncertainty, will be sufficient for the representative to perform this action.

In our opinion, the right to file an application for review of a court order based on newly discovered or new circumstances deserves special attention (hereinafter referred to as the right to file an application for review). Based on the literal interpretation of Article 54 of the CPC, the conclusion suggests itself: the right to appeal court decisions listed in this CPC article covers only the right to file complaints with higher authorities in order to verify and (or) review judicial acts and, as a result, eliminate judicial errors, that is, the right to file an appeal, cassation and supervisory complaints. An extended interpretation, despite the fact that it can be found in the literature ^{[6, p. 754]}, in this case seems impossible for two reasons: firstly, the list provided for in art. 54 of the CPC, from the point of view of legal technology, is closed; secondly, special norms (which is the norm 35 of the CPC, which provides for powers that do not require such an indication) imply an exclusively literal (restrictive) interpretation.

Of course, from the point of view of the terminological approach, revision based on newly discovered or new circumstances does not meet any of the above criteria inherent in the right to appeal court decisions: the form of application for such review is an application, not a complaint; the application, as a general rule, is submitted to the court that issued the contested court decision; the purpose of the application is bringing a judicial act into line with circumstances that could not be taken into account by the court when issuing the contested judicial act, and therefore not eliminating a judicial error.

If we proceed from the substance of the issue, and it is expressed in the criteria for classifying the representative's powers as special, the right of appeal and the right to file an application for review are not fundamentally different from each other. Moreover, as in the case of the right to appeal court decisions, the grounds for classifying the right to file an application for review as special are found according to two of the three criteria.

Thus, the influence of the right to file an application for review on the progress of the case seems obvious: by expressing the will for review expressed in the application, the person participating in the case initiates the activities of the court that issued the contested court decision aimed at reconsideration of the case, taking into account a legally significant circumstance essential to the case, which for objective reasons could not It should be taken into account during the initial consideration of the case. The fact that the influence in question is not of a progressive upward nature does not change the essence of the matter: yes, the modern system of checking judicial acts by higher courts is based on the beginning of a sequential appeal (each instance next in the hierarchy is involved in checking a judicial act after exhausting the possibilities for revoking or changing a judicial act in a lower instance), but the movement of the case It does not always have a progressive upward character, and the very essence of the movement implies the continuation of the process through the activities of subjects, and not just the transition from a lower authority to a higher one. As for the dependence of the occurrence of both verification and revision of court decisions on the will of the persons interested in them (verification, revision), the legislator adheres to a single approach in this matter (Part 2 of Article 320, part 1 of Article 376, part 1 of Article 390.2, part 1 of Article 391.1, part 1 of Article 394 of the CPC)..

From the point of view of the consequences of the representative's actions for the principal, the right to file an application for review deserves to be classified as one of the special rights of the representative no less than the right to appeal court decisions. The result of the review, as well as the appeal, implies the cancellation of the court decision. After the cancellation, the case is reviewed taking into account the newly discovered or new circumstance, which, being essential to the case by definition, will inevitably lead to the adoption of a decision directly opposite to the one in respect of which the application for review was submitted. This is what, in our opinion, should be crucial for the inclusion of the right to file an application for revision in the list of Articles 54 of the CPC, and it should be noted that this approach has already been reflected in the CGS of the Republic of Belarus (paragraphs 10, 11, part 2, Article 97).

As a counterargument, a difference in motivation for appeal and for review may be presented. The motive for appealing is usually disagreement with the decision or other judicial decision on the merits, that is, with the main conclusion of the court. This motive is subjective. In the case of filing an application for review, the very existence of a circumstance that necessitates the cancellation of a court decision comes to the fore. This factor is objective in itself. However, the question of whether to use the existing basis in the form of a newly discovered or a new circumstance is still decided by the person authorized to file such an application, based on the interest in revoking the judicial act. Therefore, the given counterargument seems clearly insufficient for non-recognition of the right to submit an application for review by a special representative.

It should be noted that Articles 62 of the CPC and 56 of the CAS, as well as Part 2 of Article 84 of the draft unified CPC of the Russian Federation ^{[11, p. 46]}, unlike Article 54 of the current CPC, include the right to sign an application for review of a judicial act under newly discovered or new circumstances among the special powers of a representative, which it seems to be a well-founded, but still insufficient step by the legislator. After all, all three of these acts leave the right to file an application for review outside the scope of the list of special powers. The opposite approach has been consolidated in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Belarus: the right to file an application, as already noted, is classified by it as special, while the right to sign an application for review in the absence of a direct indication in the law, can only be considered as general (Part 2 of Article 97, part 3 of Article 633 KGF RB).

Our analysis shows that the regulation of powers related to the review and revision of judicial acts should follow a single logic: the special rights of a representative should include both the power to sign a complaint and a request for review, as well as the right to file a complaint and a request for review. And, of course, this logic should apply equally to all three types of legal proceedings mediating the administration of justice in civil cases - civil, arbitration and administrative.

In conclusion, I would like to summarize some of the results.

The regulation of the special powers of the representative requires improvement. Such improvement should be based, first of all, on criteria for classifying powers as special. In addition to the criteria, the adjustment of the range of special powers should take into account the need for a unified approach to regulating the issue of special powers of a representative in three types of legal proceedings — civil, arbitration and administrative. Finally, the list of special powers of a representative requires expansion in connection with the legislative consolidation of new rights of the parties, the emergence of which for a representative of one or another party (taking into account the criteria for classifying as special) should depend on the direct consolidation of each of them in a power of attorney.

In view of the above, the list of special powers of a representative in the civil process needs to be supplemented with the following powers:

— according to the criterion of the administrative nature of the representative's actions — to submit additional requirements, to conclude a mediation agreement based on the results of the mediation procedure in a dispute submitted to the court, and in the absence of a special clause in the power of attorney about this authority, also the right to apply for approval of such an agreement as a settlement; only in the agro-industrial complex also the right to reduce the amount of legal claims;

— according to the criterion of the consequences of the representative's actions for the principal - to transfer the case for settlement using judicial conciliation and mediation procedures, to file an application for reimbursement of court costs, to sign an application for compensation for violation of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execute a judicial act within a reasonable time, appeals, cassation and supervisory complaints, and in the CPC also for signing an application for reconsideration of the decision on newly discovered circumstances and for signing an application for securing a claim; only in the APK - for filing a counterclaim;

— according to the criterion of the influence of the representative's actions on the emergence and movement of the case - to submit an application for compensation for violation of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time or the right to execute a judicial act within a reasonable time, to submit an application for review of a court decision (judicial act) on newly discovered or new circumstances.

Differences in the composition of special powers between civil proceedings, on the one hand, and arbitration, as well as administrative proceedings, on the other hand, can only be maintained in relation to those rights of the parties that have not yet been consolidated in the CPC. This is the right to sign a statement of claim (fixed only in the Agribusiness Code) and an agreement on factual circumstances (fixed in the Agribusiness Code and the CAS). However, these differences can be considered temporary, for the period until their regulatory consolidation in the CPC, which can be assessed as very likely in the medium term.