-
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 7 February 2012 № 1-П on the review of constitutionality of the first part of Article 2 of the Federal law of 12 February 2001 № 5-ФЗ “On Making Changes and Additions to the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Social Protection of the Citizens Affected by the Radiation As a Result of the Catastrophe of Chernobyl APP” in connection with the complaint of the citizen V.V.Avdonin
Legal issue: whether the system of compensations as established by the contested provision should extend to disabled persons from the ranks of the police on the same footing as to those from the ranks of the military, and if not, whether such inequality would be constitutional?
Ratio decidendi: the Court refused to hold the provision in question to be unconstitutional, because its proper constitutional interpretation does not impede giving an analogous compensation to disabled persons from among the police. The Court has motivated this conclusion by saying that the federal legislator must proceed from the principle of equal value of life and health of all the citizens who had suffered from the Chernobyl catastrophe, so that any differences as to the citizens’ rights in this area are admissible only to the extent they are 1) objectively justified and substantiated, and 2) pursue constitutionally significant goals, and the means used to pursue such goals are commensurate to them.
(305.94 Kb)