Problems of unification of provisions on writ proceedings in the light of development of a new civil procedure code

The article considers some problems arising from unification of provisions on writ proceedings. In 2016 writ proceedings were introduced into The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. These innovations had been developed to increase the efficiency of judicial protection, reduce the burden on arbitration courts, etc. The definitions of writ proceedings, embodied in The Arbitration Procedure Code and The Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, differ in terms of limiting the recoverable property and its amount. We analyze positive aspects and problems in use of writ proceedings in civil and arbitration proceedings. In particular, The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not determine the types of documents serving as a recognition of debt obligations by the debtor. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation fills this gap. The principle of protecting the weaker party have to be directly taken into account in unification. In particular, this should be reflected in presentation of evidence of debt recognition depending on person who acts as a recoverer — legal entity or individual. It is proposed to release citizens who are not subjects of entrepreneurial activity from this obligation. We have concluded that there is a need to preserve this type of legal proceedings within the framework of a new civil procedure code. However, the legislator will have to resolve the issues concerning the definition of jurisdiction, the exhaustive list of categories of cases for which a writ executes.