Публичное право3033-67753033-677510.24412/3033-6775-2026-3-59-68OtherЗарубежные нормативные прототипы российской модели судебного искусственного интеллектаForeign normative prototypes of the Russian model of judicial artificial intelligenceГрудцынаЛюдмила ЮрьевнаGrudtsinaLudmila Yuryevnaludmilagr@mail.ruDoctor of Law, Professor, Chairperson of the Moscow City Bar Association «Norma Prava», Honorary Attorney of Russia, Russian Academy of Sciences expertдоктор юридических наук, профессор, председатель Московской городской коллегии адвокатов «Норма права», Почетный адвокат России, эксперт РАН, ORCID 0000-0001-7731-724X, https://ludmilagru.academia.edu/research06112026359681909202628092026

В статье проводится сравнительно-правовой анализ Концепции внедрения технологий искусственного интеллекта в судопроизводство Российской Федерации, утвержденной приказом Верховного Суда РФ от 3 сентября 2026 г. № 59-П, с целью выявления зарубежных нормативных моделей, обладающих наибольшим структурным, функциональным и методологическим сходством с российским документом. Обосновывается вывод о гибридной природе российской модели судебного искусственного интеллекта. Наиболее близким функциональным прототипом выступают Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court of China on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Fields 2022 г.: совпадают сквозное применение ИИ на жизненном цикле дела, интеллектуальный поиск норм и сходных дел, анализ доказательств, подготовка проектов судебных актов, предупреждение об отклонении от сложившихся критериев и элементы прогнозной аналитики. Вместе с тем, система принципов, правовых гарантий и управления рисками российской Концепции существенно сближается с Европейской этической хартией CEPEJ 2018 г., Регламентом ЕС 2024/1689 (AI Act), Мнением CCJE № 26 (2023) и особенно Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Courts CEPEJ 2025 г.

The article conducts a comparative legal analysis of the Concept of introducing artificial intelligence technologies into the legal proceedings of the Russian Federation, approved by order of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of September 3, 2026 No. 59-P, in order to identify foreign regulatory models with the greatest structural, functional and methodological similarity to the Russian document. The conclusion about the hybrid nature of the Russian model of forensic artificial intelligence is justified. The closest functional prototype is Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court of China on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Fields 2022: end-toend application of AI in the life cycle of a case, intellectual search for norms and similar cases, analysis of evidence, preparation of draft judicial acts, warning of deviation from the established criteria and elements of predictive analytics. At the same time, the system of principles, legal guarantees and risk management of the Russian Concept is significantly closer to the European Ethical Charter CEPEJ 2018, EU Regulation 2024/1689 (AI Act), CCJE Opinion No. 26 (2023) and especially Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Co urts CEPEJ 2025.

искусственный интеллектсудебная властьцифровое правосудиеприказ Верховного Суда РФ № 59-Пумный судКитайCEPEJAI Actалгоритмическое правосудиесудебное усмотрениеautomation biasсравнительное правоведение: artificial intelligencejudiciarydigital justiceSupreme Court of RussiaSmart CourtChinaCEPEJEU AI Actalgorithmic justicejudicial discretionautomation biascomparative lawПриказ Верховного Суда РФ от 03.09.2026 № 59-П «Об утверждении Концепции внедрения технологий искусственного интеллекта в судопроизводство Российской Федерации», разд. III // СПС «Консультант- Плюс». URL: https://www.consultant.ru/ document/cons_doc_LAW_544417/ (дата обращения: 19.09.2026).Чудесенко А. В. Использование технологии искусственного интеллекта в процессе судопроизводства: сравнительно-правовой анализ проблем правового регулирования в условиях обеспечения информационной безопасности РФ // Труды по интеллектуальной собственности. 2025. Т. 53, № 2. С. 120–126.Заготовкин Д. Ф., Рыльский К. Проблемы интеграции искусственного интеллекта в судебную систему Российской Федерации // Russian Studies in Law and Politics. 2025. Т. 9, № 1. С. 4–28.Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Fields. 8 Dec. 2022. (法发〔2022〕33号). URL: https:// www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/382461. html (accessed: 19.09.2026).Даньшин А. В. Правовое регулирование применения цифровых технологий и искусственного интеллекта в судопроизводстве Китайской Народной Республики // Вестник Кемеровского государственного университета. Серия: Гуманитарные и общественные науки. 2025. Т. 9, № 1. С. 125– 137.Шестак В. А., Чайникова А. О. Институционально-технологическая модель системы «Умный суд» Китайской Народной Республики // Мировой судья. 2026. № 7. С. 27–32.Shi C., Sourdin T., Li B. The Smart Court — A New Pathway to Justice in China? // International Journal for Court Administration. 2021. Vol. 12, No. 1. Art. 4.Wei F. et al. A full-process intelligent trial system for smart court // Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering. 2022. Vol. 23, No. 2. P. 186– 206. DOI: 10.1631/FITEE.2100041.European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Strasbourg, 2018. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/ cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-theuse-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicialsystems-and-their-environment (accessed: 19.09.2026).CEPEJ. Possible use of AI to support the work of courts and legal professionals. The CEPEJ materials accompanying the 2018 Charter expressly discuss “predictive justice” tools anticipating possible outcomes, while requiring fundamental-rights safeguards. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/ tools-for-courts-and-judicial-professionalsfor-the-practical-implementation-of-ai (accessed: 19.09.2026).Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 26 (2023) “Moving forward: the use of assistive technology in the judiciary”. Strasbourg, 1 Dec. 2023. URL: https://rm.coe.int/ccje-opinion-no-26-2023- final/1680adade7 (accessed: 19.09.2026). См. также положения о рисках для судебной независимости, возможном превращении decision-support system в фактический источник решения и самоподкрепляющемся воздействии технологий, ориентированных на сложившиеся decisional norms.Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), recital 61, Annex III, para. 8(a) // OJ L, 12.7.2024. URL: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj (accessed: 19.09.2026). См. также Arts. 9–15: risk management, data and data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity; Art. 14 — понимание возможностей и ограничений системы, учет automation bias и возможность не учитывать, отменять или иным образом преодолевать выход ИИ.European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Courts. CEPEJ (2025)18Final. Strasbourg, 19 Dec. 2025. Adopted at the 45th plenary meeting (4–5 Dec. 2025). URL: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-endraft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-aifor /48802a4ad1 (accessed: 19.09.2026).Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders. Updated 31 Oct. 2025. URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidanceand-resources/artificial-intelligence-aijudicial-guidance-october-2025/ (accessed: 19.09.2026). Руководство выделяет hallucinations, bias in training data и confidentiality risks и подчеркивает личную ответственность judicial office holders.Gutiérrez J. D. Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals. Paris: UNESCO, 2025. 44 p.Order of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 59-P dated September 3, 2026, “On Approving the Concept for Implementing Artificial Intelligence Technologies in the Judicial Proceedings of the Russian Federation,” Section III // ConsultantPlus Legal Reference System. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_ doc_LAW_544417/ (accessed: September 19, 2026).Chudesenko A. V. Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Judicial Proceedings: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Regulatory Issues in the Context of Ensuring Information Security in the Russian Federation // Works on Intellectual Property. 2025. Vol. 53, No. 2. P. 120–126.Zagotovkin D. F., Rylsky K. Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Judicial System of the Russian Federation // Russian Studies in Law and Politics. 2025. Vol. 9, No. 1. P. 4–28.Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Regulating and Strengthening the Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Fields. 8 Dec. 2022. (法发〔2022〕33号). URL: https:// www.court.gov.cn/fabu/xiangqing/382461. html (accessed: September 19, 2026).Danshin A. V. Legal Regulation of the Application of Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Proceedings in the People’s Republic of China // Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2025. Vol. 9, No. 1. P. 125–137.Shestak V. A., Chainikova A. O. Institutional-Technological Model of the “Smart Court” System in the People’s Republic of China // Mirovoy Sudya [Magistrate Judge]. 2026. No. 7. P. 27–32.Shi C., Sourdin T., Li B. The Smart Court — A New Pathway to Justice in China? // International Journal for Court Administration. 2021. Vol. 12, No. 1. Art. 4.Wei F. et al. A full-process intelligent trial system for smart court // Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering. 2022. Vol. 23, No. 2. P. 186– 206. DOI: 10.1631/FITEE.2100041.European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environment. Strasbourg, 2018. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/ cepej/cepej-european-ethical-charter-on-theuse-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-judicialsystems-and-their-environment (accessed: 19.09.2026).CEPEJ. Possible use of AI to support the work of courts and legal professionals. The CEPEJ materials accompanying the 2018 Charter expressly discuss “predictive justice” tools anticipating possible outcomes, while requiring fundamental-rights safeguards. URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/ tools-for-courts-and-judicial-professionalsfor-the-practical-implementation-of-ai (accessed: 19.09.2026).Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). Opinion No. 26 (2023) “Moving forward: the use of assistive technology in the judiciary”. Strasbourg, 1 Dec. 2023. URL: https:// rm.coe.int/ccje-opinion-no-26-2023- final/1680adade7 (accessed: 19.09.2026). See also provisions regarding risks to judicial independence, the potential transformation of a decision-support system into the actual source of a decision, and the self-reinforcing impact of technologies oriented towards established decisional norms.Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act), recital 61, Annex III, para. 8(a) // OJ L, 12.7.2024. URL: https:// eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj (accessed: 19.09.2026). See also Arts. 9–15: risk management, data and data governance, technical documentation, record-keeping, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity; Art. 14 — understanding the system’s capabilities and limitations, accounting for automation bias, and the ability to disregard, overrule, or otherwise override AI output.European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Guidelines on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Courts. CEPEJ (2025)18Final. Strasbourg, 19 Dec. 2025. Adopted at the 45th plenary meeting (4–5 Dec. 2025). URL: https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-endraft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-aifor /48802a4ad1 (accessed: 19.09.2026).Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders. Updated 31 Oct. 2025. URL: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidanceand-resources/artificial-intelligence-aijudicial-guidance-october-2025/ (accessed: 19.09.2026). The guidance highlights hallucinations, bias in training data, and confidentiality risks, and emphasizes the personal responsibility of judicial office holders.Gutiérrez J. D. Guidelines for the Use of AI Systems in Courts and Tribunals. Paris: UNESCO, 2025. 44 p.