Vol 18, No 2 (2023)

paragraphs 1, 1.1 of Article 9 of Federal Law No 214-FZ as of December 30, 2004 “On Participation in the Shared Construction of Apartment Buildings and Other Real Estate Objects and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federationˮ explicitly specify cases when a participant in shared construction has the right to withdraw from the contract or demand its termination in court. These cases are mainly associated with improper fulfillment of obligations by the developer. But except in special cases, the said law provides for the possibility of termination of the contract in the presence of other grounds established by federal law or contract. One of these grounds is provided for in Article 451 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which deals with the amendment and termination of the contract in connection with a significant change in circumstances. The relevance of the issue under study is dictated by the fact that the very basis in the form of a significant change in circumstances does not have unambiguous legislative signs for understanding and application. This situation initially creates conditions for the breadth and diversity of law enforcement discretion. The interest in this ground for termination of contracts is also partly dictated by the changed attitude in practice to the previously presumed right of participants in shared-equity construction to refuse to perform the contract at any time on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 07.02.1992 No 2300-1 “On Consumer Protectionˮ. The article concludes that by its nature, a significant change in circumstances is associated with phenomena and events of an external order that affect the execution of the contract of participation in shared construction, but are not directly a consequence of the actions of the parties to fulfill the contract. The circumstance modified by the breach of contractual obligations by the party to the transaction has a different character than the events referred to in Article 451 of the Civil Code. The main reason for the refusal to satisfy the requirements for the termination of contracts of participation in shared construction is the conclusion that the participant of shared construction at the time of conclusion of the contract could foresee a significant change in circumstances. At the same time, assessing the presence of this criterion, it is necessary to proceed not just from a hypothetical possibility to foresee a change in circumstances, but to take into account specific conditions, including existing experience and knowledge, based on which, the plaintiff, having shown good faith, due care and prudence, could reasonably foresee a change in circumstances.

the article addresses issues related to normative regulation and judicial practice in the use of indirect evidence, providing formulated and generalized conclusions by the author regarding the practical problems discussed, along with proposals for overcoming challenges in proving cases involving indirect evidence. The author notes the absence of a legal definition of indirect evidence in legislation, leading to doctrinal pluralism regarding its concept and essence. Additionally, the lack of clarity in the classification and characteristics of indirect evidence, as well as criteria for their sufficiency and assessment, poses challenges for their utilization and judicial evaluation in civil proceedings, adversely affecting overall judicial practice and the efficiency of civil litigation. The methodological basis of the article is shown through formal-legal, comparative-legal, logical, and other scientific methods. The author concludes that introducing categories and definitions of “directˮ and “indirectˮ evidence into procedural legislation could serve as a potential legal solution to some issues in the practical application of indirect evidence in civil proceedings. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the necessity of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation actively collecting information on the application and assessment of indirect evidence, as well as consolidating rules and criteria for their judicial evaluation, with the aim of preparing a resolution by the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the procedure for assessing indirect evidence.