Сhanges in civil case preparation and implications for litigants

On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adopted important Plenum Resolution No. 15, dedicated to the preparation of civil cases for trial. This document, which replaced the provisions of 2008, not only updates norms but also fundamentally re-evaluates the entire stage of pre-trial preparation. From the perspective of legal practice, this is one of the most significant events in recent years, directly influencing case strategy.

The central idea of the new Resolution is that the case preparation stage can no longer be treated as a mere formality. If previously this phase was often perceived by courts and process participants as a technical step, now the Supreme Court clearly indicates its key significance. Thorough preparation is the foundation for successful case management, and this position is now enshrined at the highest judicial level.

The judge is now actively involved in the process, and their tasks include:

1. establishing the subject of proof;
2. determining the circle of parties involved in the case;
3. verifying issues of jurisdiction;
4. assessing the necessity of expert examinations;
5. seeking opportunities for amicable settlement;
6. preventing any attempts at abuse of procedural rights.

In other words, the Supreme Court is guiding the lower courts that poorly prepared cases inevitably lead to delays in the proceedings or the risk of a court decision being overturned.

One of the most innovative and actively discussed provisions is the first direct mention of artificial intelligence technologies in judicial practice.

Paragraph 42 of the Resolution obliges process participants to inform the court about the submission of information or facts obtained using AI. It is important to understand that this refers not to editorial assistance from neural networks when drafting procedural documents, but specifically to the evidentiary basis formed or processed with the application of artificial intelligence.

Examples of such information may include:

1. results of automated analysis of large data arrays (e.g., electronic correspondence or financial transactions);
2. recognition of images or documents;
3. identification of non-obvious coincidences;
4. automated analytics.

A ban on the use of AI technologies is not being introduced. However, the court must now understand the origin of the information and the method of its retrieval. For process participants, this means that when using such technologies, it is crucial to be prepared to thoroughly disclose the methodology of their acquisition and confirm their reliability.

Parallel to technological advancements, the Supreme Court is also expanding the court’s capabilities for actively seeking information. The Resolution grants judges the right to use information from various information systems and registries, both public and closed.

This means that courts will more deeply and independently verify:

1. real estate data;
2. information about legal entities;
3. details on the dispatch of correspondence;
4. the status of parties to the dispute;
5. other digital footprints.

In effect, the Supreme Court is legalizing the practice of deeper digital scrutiny of case circumstances. The lawyer’s task is to anticipate such checks and proactively analyze potential risks, ensuring maximum transparency for the client.

Article 20 of the Resolution is one of the most practical. It details the consequences of abusing procedural rights.

This refers to situations where a party:

1. systematically files unfounded motions;
2. intentionally delays the presentation of evidence;
3. disrupts the preparation of the case;
4. creates obstacles for the other party.

The Supreme Court now directly emphasizes the need for lower courts to more actively apply measures of influence, including the recovery of compensation for the actual loss of time in accordance with Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This is a serious signal for those accustomed to using the judicial process as a tool for delay.

In the old procedural model, reconciliation often remained a formality. The new Plenum places a particular emphasis on this. The Supreme Court indicated that the amicable settlement of disputes is one of the most crucial tasks of the case preparation stage. The judge is obliged to:

1. explain the possibility of mediation;
2. suggest amicable settlement procedures;
3. inform about the consequences of a settlement agreement;
4. assist in the settlement of the dispute. At the same time, the Resolution specifically emphasizes that the judge is not entitled to prejudge evidence or effectively persuade a party to abandon their claims, which serves as an important guarantee of impartiality.

The Resolution comprehensively regulates the use of web conferences and video conferencing. The court may conduct remote questioning of parties, including repeatedly. Furthermore, remote participation in preliminary court hearings is permitted. This is particularly important for regional disputes and resource optimization. The judicial process is gradually moving away from a model where every procedural action requires personal appearance in court.

The Plenum specifically addressed situations involving the substitution of an improper defendant. If, after such a substitution, jurisdiction changes, the case must be transferred to another court. Moreover, the Supreme Court explicitly stated: if a claim was initially filed against an improper defendant for the purpose of artificially altering jurisdiction, the case is subject to transfer to the proper court. This is an effective step in combating procedural maneuvering.

The Resolution also clarified an issue that had long caused disputes in practice. As a general rule, the preliminary hearing should fall within the overall timeframe for considering the case. However, for complex disputes, the court may now set a deadline beyond the standard case consideration period upon issuing a reasoned decision.

This primarily concerns cases:

1. with a large number of participants;
2. requiring expert examinations;
3. with international elements;
4. with a complex volume of evidence.

The main takeaway from these innovations is quite simple. Plenum Resolution No. 15 transforms the civil case preparation stage into a full-fledged and effective procedural filter. Courts gain more tools for early problem identification, active case management, and strict prevention of abuses.

For legal practice, this means that thorough and professional case preparation becomes not just desirable, but critically important. A significant portion of success or failure is now determined even before the main trial begins. Effective representation at all stages, especially at such a now crucial stage as case preparation, requires deep expertise In the area of Judicial protection in civil cases.