-
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
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 7 November 2013 № 1713-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the petition of the citizen Aliev against violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Federal law “On the Bodies of Judicial Community in the Russian Federation”
Court:
Constitutional Court
Legal issue: the constitutionality of the rule which does not provide for the right of a judge, whose disciplinary case is being considered by the qualification panel, to challenge the chairman or a member of the panel because of doubting their impartiality.
Ratio decidendi: since the legislation in force provides for the mechanism of judicial review of a decision of qualification panel of judges on bringing a judge to disciplinary responsibility in the form of an early deprivation of judicial powers, and also from the point of view of compliance of panel’s members with the principles of objectivity and impartiality, the contested provision may not be regarded as violating the constitutional rights of the applicant.
Dissenting opinion:
-
Nobody may serve as a judge in his own case and review the legality of his own decisions and actions. The contested regulation is incompatible with the legislative and ethical rules aiming at the prevention of the conflict of interests. It makes impossible the review of decisions of qualification panel on the grounds of its member being biased, because the law does not admit challenging such a member in principle. The Constitutional Court ought to deem the regulation in question to be unconstitutional.
(190.69 Kb)