Abstract: This article analyzes the question of missing a 30-day deadline by a consumer for filing a claim against a financial institution stipulated by the Part 3 of the Article 25 of the Federal Law of June 4, 2018 No.123-FZ “On the Commissioner for the Rights of Consumers of Financial Services”. The paper examines the positions of current legislation on financial ombudsman, procedural provisions on possibility of reinstatement of the expired deadline for filing a claim, and clarification of procedural consequences in a case where such term would not be reinstated. Methodology of this theoretical study consists in comparative-legal analysis, systemic-structural analysis, synthesis, and analogy. The author examines the question of order of assessment by the court of the claim made by a consumer of financial services for reinstatement of the expired deadline for making a claim with the court against an insurance company, similar to the subject of requirements expressed in their address to the financial ombudsman. Substantiation is made on the conclusion that such claims are subject to hearing by a judge alone at the stage of acceptance of claim filing without holding a court session.

Abstract: This article analyzes the question of missing a 30-day deadline by a consumer for filing a claim against a financial institution stipulated by the Part 3 of the Article 25 of the Federal Law of June 4, 2018 No.123-FZ “On the Commissioner for the Rights of Consumers of Financial Services”. The paper examines the positions of current legislation on financial ombudsman, procedural provisions on possibility of reinstatement of the expired deadline for filing a claim, and clarification of procedural consequences in a case where such term would not be reinstated. Methodology of this theoretical study consists in comparative-legal analysis, systemic-structural analysis, synthesis, and analogy. The author examines the question of order of assessment by the court of the claim made by a consumer of financial services for reinstatement of the expired deadline for making a claim with the court against an insurance company, similar to the subject of requirements expressed in their address to the financial ombudsman. Substantiation is made on the conclusion that such claims are subject to hearing by a judge alone at the stage of acceptance of claim filing without holding a court session.

Abstract: This publication discusses the question on “necessary” evidence assessable by the court in consideration of requirements of the consumer of financial services to insurance company regarding the seeking reimbursement of property damages resulting from an automobile accident. The author examines the question on recognition as “necessary” evidence a decision of a financial officer made after examination of the claim of a financial service consumer on violation of insurance policy obligations by the insurer, as well as materials obtained by the financial officer in examination of such claim. The theoretical research is based on application of the following scientific methods: systemic-structural analysis, synthesis, and comparative-legal analysis. The research substantiates the position that recognition as “necessary” evidence of materials collected by the financial officer in examination of a claim of a consumer of financial services on violation of obligation by a financial organization would contribute to a proper examination of an insurance dispute, as well as meet the goals of the procedural efficiency of the judicial process, since the requirement of these materials from the financial officer by the court will exclude the need for repeated submission of these materials during a hearing.

Abstract: In this article Egorova analyzes questions that relate to the process of appointment of participants in a judicial process resulting from third party liability insurance contract made by vehicle owners who may act as an obligator on the side of the defendant. The importance of apointing a proper defendant is caused by the fact that these are unique cases that require a different court procedure, thus, the relationship between parties that existed prior the trial may significantly affect the final decision of the court. The research is based on theoretical and comparative analysis of the provisions of the Federal Law No. 40 of April 25, 2002 'Concerning Compulsory Civil Insurance of Owners of Means of Transport' that set forth several ways of compensation of harm as a result of road traffic incident, each way has its own proper defendant. The results of the theoretical analysis allow to describe a range of potential proper defendants nunder third party liability insurance contract. This proves the importance of the issue raised by the author of the article. The practical importance of the research is proved by the author through analyzing procedural competences of court and what defendants may be involved in the dispute.   
 

Abstract: This article explores the issues pertaining to the option of recognizing expert witness testimony as valid evidence in cases of insurance compensation for damages in accordance with mandatory insurance of civil liability of automobile owners (further OSAGO policy). Research is conducted on the position of civil doctrine pertaining to types of expert testimonies acceptable in hearings on compensation for damages in accordance to OSAGO policy. The research is conducted based on comparative legal analysis of procedural consequences of entering expert witness testimony conducted on the basis of “doubled” object of examination as evidence. The author examines the question of possibility of rejection of expert witness testimony. Special attention is paid to the substantiation of position, according to which, portion of the testimony could be rejected if the examination was conducted on different objects by a competent expert. The article also addresses the question of procedural consequences of recognition of a portion of expert witness testimony as invalid evidence.

Abstract: This article explores the issues pertaining to the option of recognizing expert witness testimony as valid evidence in cases of insurance compensation for damages in accordance with mandatory insurance of civil liability of automobile owners (further OSAGO policy). Research is conducted on the position of civil doctrine pertaining to types of expert testimonies acceptable in hearings on compensation for damages in accordance to OSAGO policy. The research is conducted based on comparative legal analysis of procedural consequences of entering expert witness testimony conducted on the basis of “doubled” object of examination as evidence. The author examines the question of possibility of rejection of expert witness testimony. Special attention is paid to the substantiation of position, according to which, portion of the testimony could be rejected if the examination was conducted on different objects by a competent expert. The article also addresses the question of procedural consequences of recognition of a portion of expert witness testimony as invalid evidence.

Abstract: This theoretical research analyzes the questions pertaining to determination of the procedural status of financial commissioner on the consumer rights in the area of financial services in hearing cases involving insurance claims according to third-party liability coverage. Analysis is conducted on the norms of Federal Law of June 4, 2018 No. 123 FZ “On the Commissioner for the Rights of Consumers of Financial Services” in the part concerning the procedural mechanism of involvement of financial commissioner in court cases on insurance claims according to third-party liability coverage. The research is performed in light of the comparative legal analysis of the volume of procedural rights and responsibilities on the case parties and financial ombudsman, whose assistance may be required in the course of court hearing. The author analyzes the possibility of involving financial ombudsman to participate in cases under various procedural statuses. Special attention is paid to the substantiation of the conclusion, formulated on the results of the conducted research, on the absence of sufficient legal grounds for procedural involvement of a financial ombudsman in insurance court cases.