{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014050582095543959, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.990384615384615, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Terms of Appeal of Definitions in Civil Procedure

Introduction. Decisions made by the courts on emerging procedural issues are not subject to the rule of 
universal appeal and can be appealed only if there are two conditions specified in the law, the correctness of 
which is questioned in the literature. Purpose. The aim of the work is to substantiate the necessary conditions 
for an independent (separately from the decision) appeal of the rulings of the court of first instance. 
Methodology. The author used formal legal method, analysis, synthesis, formal logical method. Results. The 
proposals put forward in science are considered to supplement and amend the current civil procedural 
legislation in part of appealing the rulings of the court of first instance. The author, with reference to examples, 
noted that the current law does not always look fair and consistent in the sutuation of which particular 
definitions are subject to appeal. It is not always possible to agree with the legislator that he correctly singled 
out those definitions that are adopted on the most important procedural issues, delaying the verification of 
definitions on which may make it difficult or impossible to protect violated rights. Accordingly, there are 
reasonable claims that the legislator classifies specific definitions as appealed. The assignment of definitions to 
the number excluding the further movement of the case faces constant difficulties, since it is not always 
possible to understand by the nature of the definitions that they exclude the movement of the case. An 
important role in resolving disputes is played by the legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian 
Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court of the Russian 
Federation periodically clarifies controversial issues when appealing against rulings that arise in judicial 
practice. The Constitutional Court clarifies both private issues and formulates general rules. Conclusion. The 
author recognizes the correct approach chosen in the current legislation, notes other than independent appeals, 
ways to protect rights, as well as the role of the highest judicial authorities in clarifying disputed situations. 
Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation formulated a general rule: from the right to judicial 
protection guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to arbitrarily choose the procedure for appealing court 
decisions does not follow.