Данная работа направлена на рассмотрение взаимосвязи госпошлины и доступа граждан к правосудию. Данная тема является актуальной в свете последних законодательных изменений, внесенных в августе 2024 г. в налоговое законодательство в части повышения размера государственных пошлин. Появился вопрос о том, будет ли данная государственная мера являться препятствием для доступа к правосудию. В работе рассматриваются льготы, рассрочка и отсрочка государственной пошлины, которые могут являться рычагом уравновешивания фискальных интересов государства. При этом отмечается важность такого решения для судебной системы.

This article analyzes the legal conflict arising from the application of paragraph 5 of part 4 of Article 392 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — CPC RF), which provides for a ruling or a change in practice by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — Supreme Court of the RF) as a new ground for reviewing court decisions that have entered into legal force. Using the example of a specific ruling by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the RF in the case of Larisa Aleksandrovna Dolina, the legal position of the highest judicial instance concerning the challenging of real estate transactions on the grounds of material misrepresentation (Article 178 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — CC RF)) and the consequences of their invalidity is examined. It is established that the legal approaches formulated by the Supreme Court of the RF regarding the assessment of the bona fide purchaser and the mandatory nature of bilateral restitution create a new judicial circumstance for reviewing final decisions in a wide range of similar disputes. The conducted analysis allows us to assert that ignoring the positions contained in the rulings of the Supreme Court's collegiums hinders the restoration of the rights of bona fide participants in the real estate market and, therefore, requires the development of uniform approaches to review.

The article considers arbitration proceedings as a form of protection of rights and a dispute resolution mechanism in the field of intellectual property. It is proved that arbitration is the most flexible and economical mechanism for resolving disputes in the field of intellectual property in the context of the growing number and complexity of such cases. It is proposed to improve the regulation of arbitration, taking into account foreign practices and the specifics of disputes in the field of intellectual property. Four key areas of reform are formulated: establishing requirements for the composition of arbitration in the presence of technical issues — the inclusion of at least one arbitrator with specialized qualifications and the possibility of attracting external experts; expanding the powers of the Council for Improving Arbitration Proceedings under the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in terms of methodological support, generalization of practice, international cooperation and maintaining a database of arbitrators/experts; consolidation of effective procedures disclosure and reclamation of evidence with the permissibility of negative conclusions if they are not presented; creation of legal bases for permanent specialized arbitration institutions in the field of intellectual property with certain requirements for rules, composition of arbitrators, expertise and educational activities.