Svetlana A. Karelina

In this article, the author examines the historical heritage of the works of Sergei Mikhailovich Korneev, including the development of the topic of bankruptcy of citizens that he began in the cathedral textbook. The historical path of development of the legislation on bankruptcy of citizens in modern Russia is given: from the Federal Law of 08.01.1998 N 6-FZ “On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)” to the Federal Law of the same name of 10.26.2002 N 127-FZ and, finally, the Federal Law of 06.29.2015 N 154-FZ, which actually introduced the institution of bankruptcy of citizens and the Law on extrajudicial bankruptcy of citizens (Federal Law of July 31, 2020 No. 289-FZ). The difference between consumer and commercial bankruptcy is given; reveals the features of the implementation of constitutional principles in the process of insolvency (bankruptcy) of citizens. As part of the consideration of the principle of the social state, the problem of excluding the subsistence minimum for a dependent child from the bankruptcy estate and the problem of selling the only housing of the debtor are considered. A characteristic is given of the formed judicial practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of limiting the executive immunity of the only housing, as well as the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which established the principles for the provision of replacement housing.

The scientific heritage of Professor, Doctor of Law M. K. Treushnikov continues to be relevant for various systems of legal regulation. The sphere of regulation of insolvency (bankruptcy) relations is no exception, reflecting not only the need for clear resolution of legal disputes, but also the tasks related to the effective distribution of the debtor’s property and protection of creditors’ rights. The issues of evidence in such cases are of particular importance, as they determine the fairness and transparency of decisions. This article analyses the main provisions of M. K. Treushnikov’s theory of evidence, their practical implementation in bankruptcy cases and the significance of these approaches for improving the efficiency of court proceedings. The author analyses the adaptation and application of M. K. Treushnikov’s ideas in domestic judicial practice, including the use of presumptions, disclosure of evidence and standards for its evaluation. The article also focuses on procedural tools that allow courts to maintain objectivity and transparency in resolving conflicts between parties. The author emphasises the universality of the approaches proposed by the scholar, noting their importance for legal science in the context of permanent development of insolvency court practice.