On the Issue of Ways to Improve the System of Reviewing Judicial Acts and the Grounds for Their Cancellation Related to the Requirement of Validity

The study is devoted to improving the institution of review of judicial acts, as well as the grounds for their cancellation related to the requirement of validity. The authors come to the conclusion that the construction of a judicial system in which each of the three instances (first, appellate and highest cassation) would have its own strictly defined (non-intersecting) powers, would significantly increase the role and importance of judicial instances, provide guarantees of justice for persons participating in the case, significantly save their time and money, as well as the state as the organizer of legal proceedings. Optimization of the judicial system would entail the establishment of differentiated grounds for the cancellation of a judicial act. At present, the grounds for the cancellation of a judicial act are practically duplicated in appeal and in continuous cassation, and differ in essence in the signs of materiality and fundamentality in selective cassation and supervision. The results of the study show that the legislative structure of the grounds for the cancellation of a judicial act is formulated differently in procedural codes; in civil and administrative proceedings, the grounds for the cancellation of a judicial act in the appellate procedure are an incorrect definition of legally significant circumstances, and in arbitration proceedings, an incomplete definition of the circumstances of the subject of proof.