ENFORCEMENT OF STATE FEES IN ECONOMIC COURTS: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS

• Jasur Nuriddinov Rukhiddin O’g’li

  Higher School of Judges of the Republic, Uzbekistan

Objective: Evaluate the state duty system in economic courts in Uzbekistan, with a focus on its impact on the affordability and accessibility of legal services. The study explores the financial barriers that individuals and businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), face when navigating economic disputes in the judicial system. Method: The study employs a comparative-legal approach, utilizing logical, empirical, and specific scientific methods tailored to legal studies. It involves analyzing existing legal frameworks through comparison with practices in neighboring countries, such as Russia and Kazakhstan, using both qualitative and quantitative analysis to understand the differences in state duty structures and enforcement mechanisms. Results:  The current state duty system in Uzbekistan is significantly higher than in neighboring countries, creating financial burdens for SMEs and individuals. The research reveals that while economic courts are essential for ensuring justice, the high state fees, coupled with a lack of flexibility in fee structures, make access to justice more difficult, particularly for smaller businesses. The study suggests potential reforms, such as introducing caps on state fees and adopting more flexible fee structures similar to those in Russia and Kazakhstan, which could improve accessibility and fairness. Novelty: This research offers a unique contribution by comparing Uzbekistan’s economic court fee structure with those of neighboring countries, providing insights into the potential benefits of adopting foreign legal practices to enhance judicial accessibility. Additionally, it presents practical recommendations for reforming the state duty system, a topic that has been relatively underexplored in the context of post-Soviet legal systems.

T. Banda, Court Efficiency and Access to Justice. Spring, 2020.

L. M. LoPucki, “THE FUTURE OF COURT SYSTEM TRANSPARENCY,” Confidentiality, Transparency, U.S. Civ. Justice Syst., pp. 164–183, 2012, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199914333.003.0009.

J. C. Duff, Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, no. September. Washington, DC: Judicial Conference of the United States, 2020. [Online]. Available: www.uscourts.gov

J. Vapnek, “21 Cost-Saving Measures For The Judiciary,” Int. J. Court Adm., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 55, 2013, doi: 10.18352/ijca.7.

L. Bing, B. Pettit, and I. Slavinski, “Incomparable Punishments: How Economic Inequality Contributes to the Disparate Impact of Legal Fines and Fees,” Rsf, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 118–136, 2022, doi: 10.7758/RSF.2022.8.2.06.

E. Bosio, “A Survey of Judicial Effectiveness: The Last Quarter Century of Empirical Evidence,” World Bank Res. Obs., 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkae007.

K. Saboo, “Data illustrates the sheer impact of improving access to justice,” Prosperity Data360. [Online]. Available: https://prosperitydata360.worldbank.org/en/stories/2023/data-illustrates-the-sheer-impact-of-improving-access-to-justice

C. Cheelo, M. Hinfelaar, and M. Ndulo, The Developmental State in Zambia: Plausibility, Challenges, and Lessons from South Korea. The Cornell Institute for African Development, 2020.

P. I. Bhat, “Comparative Method of Legal Research: Nature, Process, and Potentiality,” Idea Methods Leg. Res., pp. 267–299, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199493098.003.0009.

J. Baldwin and G. Davis, Empirical Research in Law. 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199248179.013.0039.

P. I. Bhat, Doctrinal Legal Research as a Means of Synthesizing Facts, Thoughts, and Legal Principles. 2020.

G. Dannemann, Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences? 2012.

R. D. Cooter and M. D. Gilbert, Theory of Enforcement. 2022.

C. Brummer, Y. Yadav, and D. Zaring, “Regulation by Enforcement,” South. Calif. Law Rev., vol. 96, no. 6, 2024.

I. C. of J. (ICJ), Courts and the Legal Enforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Comparative Experiences of Justiciability. Human Rights and Rule of Law Series, 2008.

• View Article

• Business

Copyright (c) 2024 Jasur Nuriddinov Rukhiddin O’g’li

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.