Pretenziia Dispute Resolution in Ukraine: Formal and Informal Transformation

in Review of Central and East European Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Pretenziia, a pre-action exchange of formal letters aimed at the settlement of disputes among businesses, used to be a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit under Soviet law. Although Ukrainian legislators have marginalized pretenziia by transforming it into a completely voluntary private dispute-resolution tool, this article—based on the findings of a five-year qualitative case study—demonstrates that Ukrainian businesses continue to use and, in fact, creatively have adjusted pretenziia to the accelerated speed of a market economy. We argue that further deregulation will damage this valuable dispute-resolution institution. Instead, it is proposed that pretenziia should be integrated into current debates on alternative dispute resolution (adr) in Ukraine and should serve as an on-the-ground foundation to support the introduction in the Ukrainian legal fabric of mediation and other adr mechanisms.

Pretenziia Dispute Resolution in Ukraine: Formal and Informal Transformation

in Review of Central and East European Law

Sections

References

12

L. Kulikova“Dosudebnyi (pretenzionnyi) poriadok uregulirovaniia sporov”Khoziaistvo i pravo (1996) No.8 194–156; L. Rakitina and A. Markin “Pretenzionnoe proizvodstvo i inoi poriadok dosudebnogo uregulirovaniia spora” Iurist (2005) No.8 55–63; Marina Mednikova “Ustanovlenie fakta nesobliudeniia dosudebnogo uregulirovaniia sporov arbitrazhnym sudom: problemy primeneniia protsessual’nykh norm” Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess (2006) No.11 20–25; id. “Dosudebnoe uregulirovanie sporov v sfere ekonomicheskoi deiatel’nosti (problemy teorii i praktiki)” Kandidat nauk dissertation (Saratov 2007); Marina Rozhkova “Pravila oformleniia pred”iavleniia i rassmotreniia pretenzii” Khoziaistvo i pravo (2008) No.2 (prilozhenie) 1–64; Iuliia Koliasnikova “Primiritel’nye protsedury v arbitrazhnom protsesse” Kandidat nauk dissertation (Ekaterinburg 2009); and Ruslan Bannikov “Dosudebnyi poriadok uregulirovaniia sporov v sisteme predposylok i uslovii realizatsii (osushchestvleniia) prava na pred”iavlenie iska v sud” Kandidat nauk dissertation (Voronezh 2010).

13

David Nelken“The ‘Gap Problem’ in the Sociology of Law: A Theoretical Review”Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice (1981) No.1 35–61; and Jon Gould and Scott Barclay “Mind the Gap: The Place of Gap Studies in Sociolegal Scholarship” Annual Review of Law and Social Science (2012) No.8 323–335.

37

Kurkchiyan (2009) op.cit. note 2 344.

52

Dmytro Prytyka“Konstytutsiini osnovy pravosuddia i napriamy udoskonalennia gospodars’kogo pravosuddia”Pravo Ukraїny (1997) No.1 20–24; Denys Myrgorodskyi “Aktual’ni problemy doarbitrazhnogo vreguliuvannia gospodars’kykh sporiv” Pravo Ukraїny (1998) No.3 20–23; and Pavel Belinskii “Dosudebnoe uregulirovanie sporov” Iuridicheskaia praktika (2002) No.45 5.

96

Kyselova (2011) op.cit. note 2.

126

Svitlana Kheda“Mediation in Ukraine: Regulatory Framework and Development Trends”Corporate Disputes (October-December 2012) 53–56; Z.V. Krasilovska “Mozhlyvosti mediatsiyi pry vprovadzhenni її v pravovu system Ukraїny” Modernizatsiia systemy derzhavnogo upravlinnia (11 April 2014) 260–263; and Galyna Eromenko and Anastasiia Zaichenko “Podatkova mediatsiia: dosvid i perspektyvy vprovadzhennia v Ukraїni” Iurist i zakon (3 July 2014) 1.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 15 15 10
Full Text Views 11 11 11
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0