Legal issue: whether the contested provisions are constitutional, since they do not envisage the right of the convicted person and his advocate to have access to a dissenting opinion of a member of the panel of judges?
Ratio decidendi: the Court refused to accept the complaint for consideration, as being not in conformity with the criteria of admissibility. At the same time, the Court pointed out that judicial dissent is not an act having an independent significance and determining the rights and duties of parties to criminal proceedings or having other procedural consequences. The rights of the accused are affected directly not by the dissenting opinion of a judge, but by the sentence passed as a result of the trial. The contested provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code may not be regarded as violating the constitutional rights of the applicant. This, however, does not preclude the federal legislator from resolving the issue of the convicted person's and his advocate's access to judicial dissent in a different way – e.g. in a fashion similar to the solution already given by the legislation on constitutional, civil (exercised both by general courts under the rules of Civil Procedure Code and by arbitrazh (commercial) courts under the rules of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code), and administrative proceedings, in which judicial dissents are open to the parties and/or general public.
