CHALLENGING THE DECISION OF THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN: THE PROBLEM OF ATTRIBUTION OF PROCEDURAL STATUSES

The distribution of procedural roles in case of disagreement of consumers of financial services and a financial organization with the decision made by the financial ombudsman is considered. The discrepancy between the legal regulation of relations associated with challenging the decision of the financial ombudsman and the doctrinal provisions of civil procedural law is revealed. Cases on disagreement with the decision of the financial ombudsman are compared with cases on disagreement with the decision made by the labour dispute commission. The author criticizes the trend to define the parties of legal proceedings based on their procedural function of filing a claim, rather than on the analysis of a situation as a whole and the answer to the question of whose interests are violated and who is obliged to eliminate the violation. It is proved that the court hearing the case on cancelling the decision of the financial ombudsman performs only the secondary consideration of the dispute on the merits; so it does not matter which of the parties has filed a claim. It is concluded that there is the need to unify the procedural statuses, regardless of who initiates the referral of a case to the court.