The utility of the consultation room in civil judicial proceedings

The article examines the issue of the deliberative room institute abolition during the adoption of a judicial decision in civil proceedings and the advantages and challenges of this innovation. It is emphasized that the main guarantee of a legal and fair judicial decision is the independence, impartiality, and objectivity of the judge. It is noted that there is no single opinion in the scientific field on this issue: some approve of the proposed changes, while others, on the contrary, insist on leaving the previous procedure for adopting court decisions. The author considers the scientific provisions of different positions, expressing her own point of view. The provisions on the problematic aspects of the functioning of deliberative rooms in courts are highlighted. First of all, attention is paid to the material base. Secondly, the issue of the possibility of using communication means in the deliberative room is not fully clarified in practice. Thirdly, the legislation does not regulate the time a judge spends in the deliberative room, the possibility of taking breaks, and their duration. The author determines that the exit of the judge (judges) to the deliberative room is a kind of guarantee of the absence of influence on the court, the impact of the participants in the trial and those present on the essence of the dispute, and pressure on the judge in various ways. It is argued that this institution is practical and necessary not only during collegial consideration of the case, as it allows judges to be in the same room to discuss the circumstances of the case, expressing their opinions, positions, and reflections on the adoption of a court decision, but also during individual consideration of the case, it remains no less important and appropriate, which allows the judge to get isolation from outside influence. It is noted that the abolition of the institution of a deliberative room does not change the judge's obligation not to disclose information that constitutes the secret of the adoption of a court decision, and the closed court session, which is the judge's obligation. The paper focuses on innovations not only regarding the procedure for adopting a court decision but also regarding the procedure for issuing court decisions, and new rules for the consideration of a case in absentia. The conclusion has been made that some time is needed to draw final conclusions about the advantages and disadvantages of the relevant innovations. Only then it will be possible to clearly state about the effectiveness of implementing these innovations in practice.