-
Nov 9, 2020
-
Jan 15, 2020In free access for the first time
-
Apr 16, 2017Russian court practice in English
-
Jun 21, 2013“I propose to merge the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Commercial Court, for which it will be necessary to make amendments to the Constitution of Russia”
-
May 18, 2013"The legal positions formulated by the Presidium and Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court, - they are not only a guidance how to act, but also drafts for future court decisions"
-
Feb 6, 2012“А certain element of “the law of precedent” will serve as a factor of incessant improvement of court”
-
Jul 25, 2014“Theory knows such kind of interpretation as an interpretation contra legem, when a court interprets a law contrary the latter’s literal meaning”
-
Jun 17, 2014“Let us say that we have a super-precedential law. I mean certain “traditions” in judges’ behaviour, certain attitude towards the authority of the superior court”. (Full version)
-
May 22, 2014“It is impossible not to touch upon recently observed attempts of a significant part of legal community to introduce into Russian law-creation practice the elements of the Anglo-Saxon law of precedent”
Subject area
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 21 March 2014 № 7-П on the review of constitutionality of the provision of paragraph 7 of part 3 of Article 82 of the Federal law “On Service in the Bodies of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and Amendments to Individual Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” upon the petitions of citizens Asel’derov, Rabadanov, Suleimanov and Taryshkin
Court:
Constitutional Court
Legal issue: the constitutionality of the contested rule to the extent it serves as the ground for dismissal of a policeman in cases when private criminal prosecutions against him has been terminated due to the reconciliation of the parties before the entry of the contested provision into force, and also when the action of which the policeman was being accused had been decriminalized by the time of his dismissal.
Ratio decidendi: the contested provision does not conform to the Constitution, because it does not enable a policeman to foresee the consequences of reconciliation with the accuser for his future career and thus puts him in an unequal position compared to those who committed an analogous action after the entry of the contested provision into force. The perpetration of an act which was subsequently decriminalised may not serve as the same ground for restricting anyone’s labour rights as the commission of a crime.
(307.58 Kb)