Specifics of Appeal Model in the Doctrine of Civilian Process
Abstract
The institution of appeal within the Russian civil procedure is relatively young and has been undergoing various changes to date in the course of various reforms, taking into account its specific features in relation to civil, arbitration or administrative proceedings. In this regard, the theoretical foundations for constructing appellate models in comparative legal and historical aspects represent an important area for research. In a historical context it is interesting to look at the transformation of the German appellate model from its inception within the Civil Procedure Code to the present day. A study of the reasons for this metamorphosis and the historical and legal prerequisites for justifying the phenomenon can be useful in attempting to identify a number of general patterns, on the basis of which the process of appellate modeling of any system becomes clearer. The study was based on the hypothesis that appellate modeling cannot be an autonomous process and should not occur in isolation from the specifics of the formation and functioning of proceedings in the court of first instance. In the work the goal was to trace the process of formation and transformation of the appellate model of Germany in historical, hermeneutic and legal cultural aspects in comparison with similar models of France and Austria, as well as taking into account the analysis of legislative materials prepared during the development of the relevant procedural regulations (codes). It is concluded the process of changing the appellate model cannot be carried out in isolation from the mirror process of changing the judicial model of the first instance: an incomplete appeal is impossible in the conditions of an underdeveloped institution of judicial management of the case. The process of legislative transformation of the appellate model is inversely proportional to the transformation of the judicial model of case consideration in the court of first instance. The findings may be applied to the analysis of the Russian appellate model to explore potential avenues for its adjustment.
References
Argunov A.A. (2025) F. Klein and A. F. Kleinman. In: Kleinman A.F. Main institutions of the Soviet civilian process, disposition and competitiveness. Moscow: Gorodetz, pp. 8–61 (in Russ.)
Bähr O. (1871) Das Rechtsmittel zweiter Instanz im deutschen Civilprozeß: ein Beitrag zur Kritik des im königlich preußischen Justiz-Ministerium bearbeiteten Entwurfs einer deutschen Civilprozeß-Ordnung. S.l., no publisher, 77 S.
Bierschenk L. (2015) Die zweite Instanz im deutschen und französischen Zivilverfahren. Konzeptionelle Unterschiede und wechselseitige Schlussfolgerungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 265 S.
Borisova E.A. (2016) Appeal, cassation, supervision. Moscow: Norma, 352 p. (in Russ.)
Ebers T., Lang S. et al. (2007) Rechtstatsächliche Untersuchung zu den Auswirkungen der Reform des Zivilprozessrechts auf die gerichtliche Praxis–Evaluation ZPO-Reform. Munchen: C.H. Beck, 443 S.
Greger R. (2018) Realität und Reform des Zivilprozesses im Spiegel der Justiz-Statistik. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, vol. 131, issue 3, S. 317–353.
Hess B. (2010) Deutsches Zivilprozessrecht zwischen nationaler Eigenstandigkeit und europaischem Anpassungszwang. Ritsumelkanen Law Review, no. 27, S. 191–208.
Kist J. (2024) Die Rolle des Richters im Zivilprozess. Eine rechtsvergleichende Betrachtung ausgehend vom Zustand der Justiz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 777 S.
Klein F., Engel F. (1927) Der Zivilprozess Österreichs. Mannheim–Berlin–Leipzig: Bensheimer, 602 S.
Klein F. (1891) Pro futuro: Betrachtungen über Probleme der Civilproceßreform in Österreich. Wien: Deuticke, 117 S.
Malykina A.V. (2009) Concentration process — a base of prompt and proper proceedings of civil cases. Moscow: Gorodetz, 144 p. (in Russ.)
Menger A. (1873) Die Zulässigkeit neuen thatsächlichen Vorbringens in den höheren Instanzen: Eine civilprocessualische Abhandlung. Leipzig: Hölder, 172 S.
Rhee van C.H. (2008) The development of civil procedural law in twentieth-century Europe: From party autonomy to judicial case management and efficiency. In: C.H. van Rhee (ed.) Judicial case management and efficiency in civil litigation. Antwerpen: University Press, pp. 11–25.
Richter A.K. (1907) On complete and incomplete appeal. Zhurnal ministerstva justitcii=Journal of the Justice Ministry, no. 3, pp. 2–48 (in Russ.)
Rosenberg L., Schwab K.H., Gottwald P. (2010) Zivilprozessrecht. München: C.H. Beck, 1156 S.
Roth H. (2019) Zur Überwindung gesetzgeberischer Modellvorstellungen im zivilprozessualen Berufungsrecht durch das bessere Argument der höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung. Juristen Zeitung, no. 3, S. 115–121.
Shavell S. (1995) Appeals process as a means of error correction. Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 379–426.
Wieczorek B., Schütze R. (2021) Zivilprozessordnung und Nebengesetze. Großkommentar. Neu bearbeitete Aufl. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 1102 S.
Copyright (c) 2026 Karpova A.A.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.













