The Use of Information Obtained from “Google Maps” and “Yandex.Maps”, as Evidence in the Practice of Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation

 The Author carries out an up-to-date study reflecting the possibility of providing other means of proof to an arbitration court, namely, information that can be obtained using free services “Google Maps”  and “Yandex.Maps”. The judicial practice has been investigated, in which such means of proof meet all the evaluation criteria, and sometimes the photographs presented in the case materials are the only evidence that confirm certain circumstances of the case. An analysis of judicial practice in the arbitration process shows that photographs from Yandex.Maps and Google Maps are more often than  others attached to the case materials when it is necessary to establish the  presence of an object in a specific territory, including the periods of its presence. In relation to modern means of proof, the Author uses the term “unnamed evidence” to emphasize that the procedure for research and assessment of such evidence is not fully clear to the law enforcement officer  and is not enshrined by the legislator. Since the current arbitration  procedural legislation establishes an open list of means of evidence, and the law does not contain special instructions on the procedure for evaluating and examining such evidence (Part 2 of Article 64 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), the term used may well be applicable to information received using the Google Maps and Yandex.Maps services. The latter, in turn, under certain conditions (after going through the process of proof) can be evidence in the case, confirming certain facts. The article concludes that there is a need to legally secure the order of research and assessment of “unnamed evidence”, which is also confirmed by judicial practice. The work also mentions the proposal of Rosreestr to create a unified database service for real estate objects. With a certain degree of objectivity and reliability, it seems that this proposal should be supported at the legislative level and implemented in the foreseeable future. 

1. Bonner A. T. «Ikh nravy». Veshchestvennye dokazatel’stva v zarubezhnykh i rossiiskikh sudakh (popytka sravnitel’noi kharakteristiki), ili O veshchestvennykh dokazatel’stvakh nemnogo v shutku, a bolee – vser’ez [“Their Morals”. Material Evidence in Foreign and Russian Judicial Systems (an Attempt of Comparative Characteristics), or a Bit Jokingly About Physical Evidence, and Then – More Seriously]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 13–57. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2020-10-4-13-57.

2. Vetrova I. F., Brovkina N. D. Internet-sreda kak istochnik polucheniya auditorskikh dokazatel’stv [Internet Environment as a Source of Audit Evidence]. Vestnik Akademii – Academy Bulletin, 2015, no. 3, pp. 146–150.

3. Gromoshina N. A. Tsivilisticheskii protsess sovremennoi Rossii: problemy i perspektivy [The Civil Process of Modern Russia: Problems and Prospects]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2017. 208 p.

4. Zubovich M. M. Arbitrazhnoe dokazyvanie v svete teorii protsessual’nogo vzaimodeistviya [Judicial Proving in the Light of the Theory of Procedural Interaction]. Sibirskii yuridicheskii vestnik – Siberian Law Herald, 2010. № 4 (51). S. 130–135.

5. Luneva E. V. Ispol’zovanie obshchedostupnykh informatsionnykh tekhnologii v zashchite ekologicheskikh prav i prav na prirodnye resursy [The Use of Public Information Technologies in Protection of Environmental Rights and Rights to Natural Resources]. Lex Russica, 2020, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 29–40. DOI: 10.17803/1729-5920.2020.162.5.029-040.

6. Maksimova T. G., Svetlorusov A. A. Ispol’zovanie kosmicheskikh snimkov v kachestve dokazatel’stv v arbitrazhnom protsesse [Use of Satellite Images as Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings]. Ekonomika. Pravo. Innovatsii – Economics. Law. Innovations, 2020, no. 1, pp. 30–34.

7. Nakhova E. A. K voprosu o logicheskoi prirode dokazyvaniya v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [On the Question of the Logical Nature of Evidence in Civil Proceedings]. Pravoprimenenie v publichnom i chastnom prave – Law Enforcement in Public and Private Law. Omsk, Dostoevsky Omsk State University Publ., 2019, pp. 82–86.

8. Reshetnikova I. V. Kurs dokazatel’stvennogo prava v rossiiskom grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve [Course of Evidence in Russian Civil Procedure]. Moscow, Norma Publ., Infra-M Publ., 2000. 288 p.

9. Reshetnikova I. V. Sravnitel’nyi analiz pravovogo regulirovaniya dokazyvaniya v protsessual’nom zakonodatel’stve Rossii [Comparative Analysis of the Legal Regulation of Proof in the Procedural Legislation of Russia]. Problemy realizatsii norm, reguliruyushchikh dokazyvanie i dokazatel’stva v grazhdanskom, arbitrazhnom i administrativnom sudoproizvodstve – Problems of the Implementation of the Rules Governing Proof and Evidence in Civil, Arbitration and Administrative Proceedings. St. Petersburg, Petropolis Publ., 2015, pp. 273–279.

10. Treushnikov M. K. Sudebnye dokazatel’stva [Forensic Evidence]. 5th ed. Moscow, Gorodets Publ., 2016. 304 p.

11. Chernykh I. I. Pravovoe prognozirovanie v sfere grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva v usloviyakh razvitiya informatsionnykh tekhnologii [Legal Forecasting in the Field of Civil Proceedings in the Context of Development of Information Technologies]. Aktual’nye problemy rossiiskogo prava – Actual Problems of Russian Law, 2019, no. 6 (103), pp. 58–72. DOI: 10.17803/1994-1471.2019.103.6.058-072.

12. Bales S. L. The Trial Presentation Companion: A Step-By-Step Guide to Presenting Electronic Evidence in Courtroom. Aspen Publishers, 2018. 378 p.

13. Conesa F. C., Madella M., Galiatsatos N., Balbo A. L., Rajesh S. V., Ajithprasad P. CORONA Photographs In Monsoonal Semi-Arid Environments: Addressing Archaeological Surveys and Historic Landscape Dynamics Over North Gujarat, India. Archaeological Prospection, 2015, vol. 22, iss. 2. pp. 75–90. DOI: 10.1002/arp.1498.