Revision of decisions of instances that examine disputes and cases of crimes that have entered into force may be carried out according to the rules Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. New edition norms establishes the circumstances under which this is allowed. Let's consider it in more detail. 
Reasons for reconsideration of decisions
These include:
- Newly discovered facts. They are indicated in h. 3 tbsp. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. For a repeated consideration of decisions, circumstances must arise prior to the adoption of the act and be material for the case.
- New circumstances. They are fixed in part four of the norm under consideration. These circumstances should arise after the ruling is issued and be relevant to the resolution of the case.
Newly discovered facts
In accordance with h. 4 tbsp. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian FederationThey include:
- Essential facts about which the applicant did not know, and they could not be known to him.
- Obviously false information provided by a witness, expert, incorrect translation, falsification of evidence, which led to the adoption of an unreasonable / illegal decision and established by a sentence that entered into force.
- Crimes of participants in the proceedings, other persons involved in the proceedings, as well as their representatives, judges committed in the framework of legal proceedings. They must be confirmed by a sentence that has entered into force.
Other circumstances
New facts include:
- The cancellation of an act issued by the court of general jurisdiction or arbitration, or the decision of the state body / local authority, which served as the basis for a court decision in the case.
- Recognition of the invalidity of the transaction, which entailed the adoption of an unreasonable / illegal resolution in the case. The relevant circumstance must be confirmed by the decision that has entered into force.
- Recognition of the law applied in a particular dispute / case, in connection with the decision on which the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court, which is not consistent with the Constitution.
- Determination by the NCHR of violations of clauses of the Convention for the Protection of Freedoms, Interests, Human Rights in the Proceedings in Connection of which a Complaint was Submitted.
- A change / determination in a resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the practice of applying the norm used by the court in a particular dispute / case, after a decision is made that sent a request for review in a supervisory review procedure, or in an act of the specified body adopted on the basis of a different case in a supervisory review, or in a plenary decision of the Armed Forces.
Commentary on Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation
Traditionally, the review of judgments issued in cases is carried out by a higher authority. The legislation, however, provides for several exceptions to this rule. In some cases, the courts have the right to conduct an out-of-court control of their own judgments. At its core, this procedure is a review of acts on newly discovered or other material circumstances. Repeated review as indicated norm, carried out in respect of decisions that have entered into force. In the legal literature, this procedure is referred (and quite rightly) to the functions of self-control of authorized authorities. Analysis of Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with the comments of jurists shows that this is due to the fact that the classification of facts as newly discovered as a result of their discovery is carried out, in fact, by the body that adopted or amended the earlier act.
Specificity
Accumulated during the implementation of the provisions enshrined in Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure, judicial practice shows that the implementation of the provisions of the norm is an independent stage of the civil process.Together with the supervisory and cassation proceedings, the rules of which also revise the decisions that have entered into force, this stage has an exceptional character. It acts as an additional tool in the mechanism of protecting the interests and rights of legal entities and citizens.
The essence of the procedure
In accordance with the position formulated by the Constitutional Court, the right to a defense in court guaranteed by the Constitution implies the possibility of eliminating mistakes made by courts even after considering a case in that instance, the resolution of which, according to industry legislation, is considered final in the sense that it cannot be reviewed in in the usual manner. Repeated consideration of the act is allowed in the framework of additional proceedings - on newly discovered facts. Application Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure thus allows you to fix errors. We are talking about those facts that could not be revealed earlier, but as a result of which the infringed interests and rights of legal entities and citizens were not protected. The ECHR determines that one of the mandatory principles of the functioning of the judicial system is the inviolability and finality of acts that have entered into force. However, he indicated that the review procedure itself does not contradict the provision of legal certainty to the extent that it is implemented to correct errors. 
An object
As it acts decisions that have entered into force. Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation applies to acts of any authorities that terminate the proceedings. These include decisions of the first instance, appeals / cassation rulings / decisions. Within the meaning of Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federationare subject to revision and acts of the Presidium of the Armed Forces. As an independent object of application of the norm, definitions on termination of production, leaving applications without consideration, adopted at all stages of production may also serve.
Additionally
Object of application Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure there may be definitions of the first, appeal, supervisory, cassation instances that do not complete the process at a separate stage. Revision of such decisions is allowed if the law expressly provides for them the possibility of contestation. Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure also applies to definitions that impede the progress of a case. For a more complete implementation of the provisions of the considered norm, the object may be the definitions of all instances, which can be appealed exclusively with the decision.
Description of circumstances
AT h. 2 tbsp. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation conditions are fixed under which decisions can be revised. If we talk about newly discovered facts, then, according to the norm, they must exist at the time of the act. Moreover, these circumstances are taken into account if they were not and could not be known to the applicant. In the theory of law, their characteristics are developed in sufficient detail. A newly discovered circumstance should be considered a legal fact, causing the emergence, termination or change of legal relations. It must have a direct and substantial connection with the case in question. 
Important point
The newly discovered facts must be distinguished from the changed circumstances. The latter are the grounds that were used in making the decision, but were subsequently adjusted. These circumstances may be used in filing another claim. New evidence does not appear as newly discovered facts. This is due to the following. By newly discovered facts that are not known to the court when making a decision, decision, determination, understand the circumstances to be established. Accordingly, facts already confirmed by new evidence cannot be used as grounds for revising an act in the order of the rule in question. Judicial practice under Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation shows that not all previously unknown circumstances can be invoked by the applicant. Only those facts that relate to the subject of evidence will be relevant and may affect the conclusions of the court when making the decision.
Crimes of parties and other parties to the process
For the revision of the decision, the very fact of the unlawful actions of these persons is sufficient. Moreover, it will not matter if they have influenced the content of the act adopted in the case or not. At the same time, crimes committed by judges serve as the basis for a repeated consideration of the decision on newly discovered facts, if they occurred during the trial. The fact of an unlawful action must be confirmed by a sentence that has entered into force. However, the possibility of revising the act in the presence of circumstances certified by other documents of a procedural nature is also provided for by law. So, article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to them the decision / ruling of the court, prosecutor, inquiry officer / investigator to terminate the proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the issuance of the act of amnesty or pardon, due to the death of the accused, not reaching the age of the subject established to hold accountable UK. 
Novel of Legislation
Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (new) secures the possibility of revising the decision in connection with the circumstances that arose after the adoption of the act that entered into force. Their exhaustive list is enshrined in part four of the article in question.. Such circumstances include, first of all, the cancellation of the decision of the court of general jurisdiction, the arbitration, as well as the act of the state body or local government structure, which served as the basis for the impugned decision in the case. Of these, the most common is the refutation of a fact established prejudicially and laid the foundation for a decision or decision. In any case, the court is obliged to confirm that circumstances that were previously recognized as being outside the scope of the case are significant for consideration and resolution on the merits. Failure to study them in the prescribed manner may or could lead to the adoption of an unreasonable / illegal decision. Circumstances that are established by other bodies, with the exception of judicial ones, are not considered prejudicial. They must be proved according to the general rules within the framework of production. Accordingly, if we talk about such a basis for revising a resolution, such as the cancellation of acts of a state body or local government structure that were the reason for its adoption, then we must take into account that:
- Their content should underlie the decision. In other words, the court accepted them as a proper confirmation of the circumstance to be proved in the case.
- They should not act as a subject of separate (independent) proceedings.
Hierarchy of norms
The resolution of cases in accordance with constitutional provisions, the terms of international agreements and other acts is the responsibility of the court. Having revealed during the consideration of the dispute that the legal document does not comply with the norm, which has more legal force, the court must apply the latter. The corresponding rule is enshrined in Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Part 2). If, on the other hand, the act underlying the decision is invalidated or canceled according to the procedure established by law as inappropriate to the document with greater force, this circumstance cannot appear as new. This is due to the fact that the authority, in fact, should not have been guided by this act. The court was obliged to make a decision, according to the norms, which had great force. 
Transaction invalidity
This circumstance is also considered new in the context of the rule in question. Considering Art.392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with the comments of lawyers, it can be noted that lawyers draw attention to the fact that the invalidity of the transaction must be confirmed by a decision made by the court of general jurisdiction or by an arbitration that has entered into force. It is worth noting that a similar norm is also present in the agro-industrial complex (Article 311). Invalid transactions may be null and void. Such differentiation is carried out depending on the need for a court decision. If it is required, the transaction is disputable; if not, it is void.
Application difficulties
Analyzing the practice of arbitration courts, which used as a basis for canceling a decision that has entered into force, it is possible to note the ambiguity and inconsistency of approaches to solving this issue. This, in turn, has led to quite active disputes over whether it is only a contested transaction or an insignificant one too. So in one of the cases the following conclusion was made: "The agreement is recognized as null and void, therefore, the facts related to it cannot act as newly discovered circumstances, since invalidity occurs regardless of whether it is recognized by the court." The correctness of this position is generally confirmed by the doctrine of law. Indeed, the nullity of the transaction does not entail legal consequences and implies invalidity from the moment of conclusion, regardless of the court decision. The parties not only could, but also should have known that the agreement did not comply with the norms. In this regard, the relevant circumstance is not newly discovered and is not used as a basis for reviewing the decision.
Sun explanations
In plenary judgment No. 52 of 2011, the Court indicated that the ground for revising the act was the recognition of the invalidity of the transaction (null or voidable) by the arbitration or the court of general jurisdiction, which entailed the issuance of the disputed act. It should be borne in mind that this circumstance applies when there is confirmation. In particular, we are talking about the fact that in the operative part of the decision there is a conclusion on the recognition of invalidity of a void / disputable transaction or on the implementation of the relevant consequences. 
Part Four: Clause 4
Art. 392 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation It provides as a basis for the review of the decision that the ECHR has found violations of the provisions of the Convention establishing freedom and human rights when the court considers a case, in connection with which a citizen appealed to the European authority with a complaint. To study this circumstance, one should turn to Federal Law No. 54. This normative act recognizes the right of a Russian citizen to apply to the ECHR to protect his interests and freedoms within six months from the moment when the last legal instrument provided for by domestic law was used. It is worth noting that the violation established by the European Court in criminal proceedings related to the implementation of the federal law that does not comply with the Convention acts as the basis for the resumption of the proceedings. The corresponding provision is enshrined in 41 articles of the CPC. A similar norm is provided for in t. 311 of the agro-industrial complex. It is worth noting that the changes introduced to the Code of Civil Procedure in 2010 are the result of the execution of the instructions of the supreme body exercising constitutional review. The use of short stories, as practice has shown, has significantly reduced the percentage of illegal and unfounded decisions.