“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”
"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"
“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)
“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”
This project is dedicated to the development of judge-made law in Russia. Since the most famous (although not the sole) form of judge-made law is judicial precedent, the project has been given the name “The Institute of Precedent”.
When speaking of a “precedent”, we usually mean a certain kind of novelty – and not necessarily a positive one. It is obvious that legal novelties can give rise to discussions as easily as any others. Increasingly, highest courts become the most common venue for such debates. Due to its transitional character, the Russian legal system became a genuine laboratory for experiments, purporting to develop the law and make it susceptible to ever-changing circumstances. Some of these novelties occur just inside the legal system, and in any event the courts are the place in which they are tested. The highest judicial bodies of the Russian Federation not only apply, but also develop the law. Our project is devised with the intention to monitor these complex and often controversial developments, offering different perspectives on the growth of judge-made law in Russia.
Whether the procurator (public prosecutor), when applying to a court in the interest of an uncertain class of persons, should use the mandatory extrajudicial dispute settlement procedure before?
The constitutionality of the criminal prosecution for a violation of the procedure for conducting meetings, assemblies, manifestations and picketing, given that the accused has already been repeatedly (more than twice within 180 days) brought to administrative responsibility.