Prior to the advent of the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, digitalization of administrative court proceedings was not a prominent priority in Russia. However, subsequent to the emergence of this global health crisis, a series of unprecedented modifications were initiated. The regulation of administrative proceedings remains distinct from other procedural rules with regard to the implementation of digital technologies. For instance, admission to remote participation (web conferencing) depends not only on technical capabilities of a court but also on whether a judge deems such interaction feasible.  Another significant aspect of digitalization is the application of artificial intelligence, the implementation of which is still unclear in relation to existing procedural norms. This study aims to evaluate the current rules governing administrative judicial proceedings in Russia in terms of their readiness for digital transformation. To obtain valid results, the author compares these rules with those of foreign jurisdictions where the process of digitalization has commenced and achieved considerable success, with France serving as a notable example. Using the comparative legal method, the study establishes a conceptual framework, evaluates the legal regulations, and identifies options for addressing emerging legal issues. In Russia, the Code of Administrative Procedure imposes additional requirements for employing web conferencing. However, neither the law nor judicial practice has developed criteria for cases where personal presence is deemed necessary. This situation creates conditions for a violation of the right to a remedy, as it arbitrarily restricts litigants’ rights. Furthermore, if remote participation is not approved, disputing parties are left with the “old” set of legal instruments, depriving them of many advantages associated with remote access, which could reduce material and time costs. In contrast, France does not face this issue, as the idea of real cost reduction has been enshrined in law. Additionally, foreign experiences in implementing artificial intelligence are significant, as Russian domestic law does not adequately address this matter. Despite the long-standing availability of court decisions in Russia for public scrutiny, a significant market for services related to predictive justice remains non-existent, in contrast to the prevalent market dynamics observed in France. The article’s conclusion asserts the urgency of implementing artificial intelligence to prevent the privatization of justice administration by private entities. In the absence of such measures, the principles of judicial independence and impartiality may be compromised, resulting in a violation of constitutional guarantees.

The study sets out to evaluate the existing electronic filing of lawsuit services in civil litigation in Russia as an additional opportunity to access justice and implement the right to be heard. The author identifies the reasons for continuing to use the court system by mail or in person. Because ordinary people and lawyers are cautious about new technology, a lawsuit filed online might not be taken seriously. Additionally, the guarantees provided by law aim to preserve the date of the initial court appeal in cases where proceedings cannot be initiated due to noncompliance with the required formalities for the statement of claim. Based on the functionally equivalent method developed by UNCITRAL, the right to access justice has been shown to be unjustifiably violated by the procedure of technical verification of claim submitted to the court, which empowers a court official to notify the plaintiff that the documents cannot be recognized as received. The study evaluates the statements in current legal literature regarding the use of artificial intelligence by existing court filing services, as well as plans to develop a cassation appeal service using predicative justice technologies in terms of their impact on access to justice and the right to be heard. It is proposed that ethical rules be developed on the use of artificial intelligence in communication between the plaintiff and the court at the stage of applying to the court. Such an approach should allow to evaluate the administration of justice as posing the greatest risks to human rights in general and procedural rights in particular. The right of a lawyer to access judicial practice and tools for its analysis should be considered as part of the right to be heard.

Despite the significant number of works devoted to electronic evidence, both in Russian and foreign legal doctrine, there continues to be keen interest in this topic. In Russian civil procedural law, problems are identified as arising in judicial practice when using electronic evidence. Many scientists and practitioners draw attention to the need to supplement procedural codes with separate articles devoted to electronic evidence — in particular, the procedure for obtaining it by the court. The present study considers whether errors encountered in judicial practice can be traced to in sufficient regulation governing the use of electronic evidence. In essence, this concerns whether electronic evidence has essential differences with other means of proof that need to be reflected in the law by supplementing procedural codes with relevant provisions. Based on general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, comparison, comparison) and private law methods (formal-legal), special attention in the work is paid to the study of Russian procedural legislation and existing scientific positions in the theory of judicial proof along with proposals for improving procedural legislation in this area. As well as analyzing the main approaches to the concept of electronic evidence existing in science, the work specifies the attributes of electronic evidence, considers the position of electronic evidence in the system of judicial evidence, and identifies a need to supplement procedural codes with separate rules on electronic evidence. The study affirms the correctness of the position according to which electronic evidence should not be considered as a separate means of proof. This conclusion is based on the study of the theory of judicial proof, in which the method of its examination (or obtaining evidence) by the court is determined as a feature of each individual piece of evidence. Since electronic evidence demonstrates no specificity in this respect and based on the study of existing proposals in the scientific literature for improving procedural legislation, it is concluded that procedural codes do not need to be supplemented with separate articles on electronic evidence. Thus, the procedure for handling electronic evidence is subject to the general provisions of the law on judicial evidence (rules for the request, disclosure, provision, examination, and evaluation of evidence), taking into account the existing clarifications for written evidence.

Computer games have become an integral part of leisure activities for millions of people around the world. At the same time, the desire of players to gain a competitive advantage and the will to achieve immediate results often encourage the users to employ cheats, i.e., software tools enabling victories to be achieved dishonestly. The spread of cheats undermines the principles of fair play and creates unequal conditions for users. This, in turn, leads to a decrease in the gaming audience and, as a result, entails losses for publishers. In addition, cheats often infringe on the exclusive rights of copyright holders. In this regard, the legal issues of cheats, especially in the context of protecting the copyrights of video game copyright holders, represent a relevant research direction. This study aims to characterize cheats and anti-cheat technologies from the legal point of view, to determine their conformity with the provisions of copyright laws and with user agreements, to establish the type of responsibility of the creators of cheats, as well as to identify whether cheats are always deemed unacceptable from the legal point of view. The research was conducted using the methods of formal legal and comparative legal analysis. The former was used to assess the scope of copyright protection of video games and to discuss the capacity of individual norms to cover cheats. The latter was used to compare norms concerning technological means of copyright protection, the scope of copyright protection of video games, etc. As a result, several legal qualifications of cheats (from the point of view of criminal and civil law) were proposed. It was concluded that most modern online game cheats violate the exclusive rights of the authors as well as the provisions of user agreements. In this regard, there is a growing demand for anti-cheating technologies, which are in essence technological means of copyright protection, and in some jurisdictions, the very fact of their circumvention may result in liability.

In this article, we carry out a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the criminal policy in the field of cryptocurrency confiscation in Russia, the European Union, and the United States. The relevance of this research is determined by the rapid growth of crimes involving crypto assets (money laundering, cybercrimes, and drug trafficking) and the lack of effective mechanisms for their final confiscation and implementation in Russia, which undermines the efforts of law enforcement agencies. We aim to identify effective models of cryptocurrency confiscation based on a comparative analysis of legislation and practice in leading jurisdictions and, on this basis, to develop recommendations for improving the Russian legal framework. The methodology includes a comparative legal analysis of regulatory acts (Russian Criminal Procedure Code, EU Directive 2014/42/EU, US Code), a formal legal method, an analysis of judicial practice (Russia, USA), and doctrinal sources. The key findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the USA enjoys the most advanced system, where the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) actively uses private exchanges to convert confiscated assets; (2) the EU has established a strong legal framework (5/6AMLD, Directive 2014/42/EU); however, implementation practices here vary among member states, combining government-owned storage and outsourced sales through licensed platforms; (3) in the Russian Federation, despite the practice of seizure and arrest of crypto assets and legislative initiatives, the legal mechanism for their confiscation and sale is lacking, making court decisions unenforceable. In order to overcome this gap in Russia, it is necessary to urgently legislate cryptocurrency as property for the purposes of confiscation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, grant the Federal Service for Judicial Enforcement of the Russian Federation the authority to sell through licensed platforms, as well as to develop expert potential. Our study extends the current knowledge by detailing the technological aspects of confiscation in the EU and the USA and proposes specific ways to modernize the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

The introduction of modern tools in civil proceedings, providing remote presence and realization of all procedural rights and obligations, suggests that the traditional form of participation of the prosecutor in civil proceedings is undergoing transformation. One of the key technologies that provide the most advanced possibility of participation in the process of proceedings in civil cases is web-conferencing or online meeting. A notable feature of this technology is the ability to participate in a court hearing “in click accessibility” from the comfort of one’s own home. The highlighted characteristics of this technology suggest that there are limited grounds for the prosecutor to apply to the court in defense of citizens and then participate in the court session. Wide opportunities for increasing the publicity and accessibility of justice with the use of the technology under consideration may have a downside, which should be outlined and the problematic points necessary to elaborate the possibility of prosecutor’s participation in civil proceedings in the ongoing and actively developing digitalization. The study aims to identify the nature and direction of the impact of online court technology on the role of the prosecutor applying to the court in defense of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens. A key feature of this study is the application of the inductive method, which makes it possible to abstract from other information technologies used in the field of civil procedure. On the contrary, emphasis is placed on a specific technology in order to identify new opportunities and risks offered by the challenges of the new digital reality. In addition, the study used the formal-legal method, which manifested itself in the analysis of the relevant normative regulation, the logical method for the presentation and formation of the results of the conducted analysis. The following conclusions were made based on the results of the analysis: 1) web-conference (online hearing) has a significant impact on the principles of publicity, accessibility and equality; 2) web-conference (online hearing) allows the most sensitive segments of the population to remotely participate in a court hearing, controlling the quality of legal assistance provided by the prosecutor; 3) the optional nature of the use of web-conference (online hearing) does not justify the hypothesis of reducing the categories of citizens in defense of whose interests the prosecutor can appeal to the court; 4) the use of web conferencing (online sessions) increases the publicity of the activities of the prosecutor’s office due to the control by the material plaintiff over the course of the proceedings and the quality of legal assistance.

The ubiquitous digital transformation has also affected civil proceedings. However, neither legislators nor scholars have yet given due consideration to the innovations brought about by this phenomenon. This paper aims to characterize electronic civil proceedings in Kazakhstan, identify regulatory challenges, and propose solutions to overcome them. The study employs descriptive, analytical, and formal-legal methods to examine e-justice issues. The article highlights the objectives of digitalizing civil proceedings in Kazakhstan and key initiatives to achieve them. It discusses the information-analytical systems in use, including various services and modules. Additionally, it notes the areas of judicial activity where big data and artificial intelligence (AI) are currently applied. An analysis of Kazakhstan’s experience reveals the following challenges: insufficient transparency in judicial activities; inadequate legal regulation of IT application, including the use of AI in judicial processes; lack of a robust legislative framework for establishing and operating a digital environment. The paper supports the idea of adopting a Digital Code of the republic of Kazakhstan and amending the Civil Procedure Code of the republic of Kazakhstan to ensure proper implementation of civil procedure principles. It is also proposed that the specifics of applying civil procedure norms in electronic format be formalized in a regulatory resolution of the Supreme Court of the republic of Kazakhstan.

The essay highlights the positions of Russian legal scholars, specialists in procedural law, according to whom modern technologies should change the very essence of legal proceedings. The process, in particular, will consist in the fact that sooner or later a human judge will be replaced by artificial intelligence, and digital legal proceedings will take place according to new principles. For their part, the author of the essay puts forward arguments justifying the value of the classical principles of legal proceedings, primarily listed in Art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, since only their action creates a regime in which justice is administered, the highest quality of protection of subjective rights, freedoms and legitimate interests is ensured. Special focus is put on the thesis research of Danil Olegovich Drozd on the topic “The Procedural Forms of the Use of Artificial Intelligence Elements in the Modern Commercial and Civil Litigation” (Moscow, 2024), the author of which proposed options for adapting the known principles of the judicial process to artificial intelligence. In response, arguments are given in favour of the fact that it will not be possible to adapt the key principles of justice to artificial intelligence at present or in the near future. At the same time, the principle of judicial independence is emphasized, as well as the principle of the administration of justice exclusively by the court. Consequently, it is obviously too early to talk about the possibility of replacing a human judge in administering justice with such intelligence. The author believes that modern technologies can certainly facilitate the administration of justice, including by facilitating access to it for various people. At the same time, the rule, according to which such technologies should fully ensure the operation of generally known principles of justice, should be applied as a key principle of using modern technologies in legal proceedings.

With the enactment of the Federal Law on Digital Financial Assets and Digital Currency in 2020, digital currency was regulated for the first time ever in Russia. This established the prerequisites for discussing the issue of foreclosure on digital currency in enforcement proceedings. However, no specific amendment for such a foreclosure has been made in the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings. In this regard, the article aims to propose a possible model of foreclosure on cryptocurrencies in Russian enforcement proceedings and describe the factors on which such a procedure would depend. From the standpoint of a genetic and systematic approach the article analyzes domestic doctrinal sources, current Russian legislation and bylaws, and the Global Code of Digital Enforcement as an act of “soft law” summarizing the experience of foreclosing on digital assets in various legal systems. The research allowed to arrive at the following main conclusions: 1) the answer to the question about the legal nature of cryptocurrencies is not crucial for creating an appropriate model of foreclosure on digital currencies. If, in the interests of enforcement, digital currencies can be perceived as undocumented securities or receivable debts, this should be done; 2) due to the variety of digital currencies and their characteristics, it is hardly possible to create a universal model of foreclosure on them. Therefore, there should exist different types of foreclosure depending on a number of factors. Depending on the type of digital currency, foreclosure on cryptocurrencies may be based on the general procedure for foreclosing on “other property assets” (i.e. nonpecuniary assets), or require its integration into the mechanism for the enforcement of non-property claims that do not allow the replacement of the subject matter of enforcement. In conclusion, the author suggests that, with few exceptions, the existing tools of enforcement proceedings seem sufficient to create a mechanism for foreclosing on digital currency. In this sense, the development of such a mechanism requires to amend legislation on a case-by-case basis, as well as to set the methodology for enforcement in relation to digital currency, rather than a complete rethinking of enforcement proceedings. However, the effectiveness of enforcement through digital assets is also a matter of creating controlled cryptocurrency markets, financial and tax control, and information sovereignty. Therefore, the development of appropriate legal mechanisms for foreclosing on digital currency within the enforcement proceedings is not in itself a guarantee of the effectiveness of these mechanisms in practice.

This essay examines the transformation of the legal profession caused by the proliferation of LegalTech and artificial intelligence primarily focusing on the erosion of the traditional lawyer’s monopoly. Drawing on comparative legal analysis of German and U.S. case law, the study investigates how LegalTech platforms challenge established doctrines of unauthorized practice of law across jurisdictions. The research identifies a fundamental tension between legal formalism and procedural simplification that has entered a new phase in the digital era. The findings demonstrate that conservative legal systems are experiencing rapid expansion of automated pre-trial legal consultation services, resulting in systematic deprofessionalization of legal services. Significantly, the driving forces behind this transformation are commercial IT entities that approach the legal market primarily as a profit center, undermining the core principles of the legal profession, i.e., independence and exclusivity. These principles traditionally underpin the profession’s dual function of providing qualified legal assistance while upholding the rule of law. The essay advances a theoretical framework for assessing the risks of standardizing legal services. These risks include degradation of service quality in

complex or atypical cases, ambiguity in liability allocation for algorithmic errors, and the gradual displacement of normative legal foundations as conflict resolution shifts from legislative bodies to IT corporate structures. Building on Luhmann’s systems theory, the analysis argues for preserving law’s procedural autonomy as an essential mechanism for social conflict resolution. The study concludes that while LegalTech integration offers significant benefits, it must occur within a robust regulatory framework that clearly delineates jurisdictional boundaries of acceptable deprofessionalization and establishes mechanisms for professional accountability. This regulatory approach is essential regardless of the technological capabilities offered by artificial intelligence systems and online dispute resolution platforms.

In resolving corporate disputes of many kinds, the rights and legitimate interests of a considerable number of individuals may be impacted. Consequently, the establishment of specific procedural guidelines that would ensure the timely inclusion of all interested parties in the process is of paramount importance. According to Article 225.4 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code, the arbitrazh court has the authority to require a legal entity to notify its members of a corporate dispute. However, the law does not specify the procedure for the fulfillment of such an obligation by a corporation. In this note, the author considers approaches to employing digital technologies by a legal entity to inform its members and other individuals stipulated by the law regarding the emergence of a corporate dispute. An analysis of the current legislation reveals that the electronic form of notification is required exclusively for public joint-stock corporations. The author concludes that non-public business partnerships as well as non-public corporations must expressly provide for the use of electronic forms of notification to their participants and other persons specified in the law about a corporate dispute in the legal entity’s charter. This approach ensures the prompt dissemination of information about corporate disputes among the interested parties, thereby notification periods established by the arbitrazh court’s established notification periods. In cases where a legal entity’s charter lacks provisions for notifying about the emergence of a corporate dispute, the procedure of notifying about a meeting on rendering corporate decision or absentee voting should be applied.

The modern order requires the development of information technologies, artificial intelligence technologies and high-quality digitalization of various spheres of society. The importance and necessity of systematic and effective support for developers of various forms of innovative technologies is already recognized worldwide: various measures are being created to support innovative companies. Foreign countries actively support the creation of venture funds. This study examines key challenges in the legal regulation of venture investment in Russia using recent statistical data. The authors identify systemic shortcomings in current legislation and substantiate the need for comprehensive reforms, including revisions to the regulatory framework, implementation of substantive investor protections, and development of incentive mechanisms. The proposed measures aim to establish a sustainable venture financing ecosystem in the Russian Federation.