-
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 11 December 2014 № 32-П upon the petition of Salekhard City Court
Legislation in question: Article 1594 of the Criminal Code
Legal issue: The constitutionality of the rule which establishes a less severe criminal punishment for fraud if the latter was committed in the context of entrepreneurial activities.
Ratio decidendi: The legislator had the right to provide for specific regulation in the area of business activities, if it purports to create a mechanism of protection of good-faith entrepreneurs from unjustified criminal liability. However, a lighter punishment for business fraud compared with the general fraud does not correspond to the Constitution. The federal legislator must amend the contested legislation within 6 months; otherwise it should lose force automatically.
Dissenting opinion:
-
Business activities and contract have a legally protected value per se. It essentially distinguishes them from fraud made covertly, not under authorities’ control; the difference in criminal liability may not therefore be ruled out. In current situation the State is limited in terms of means for improving business climate and controlling the lawfulness of criminal prosecution; therefore, the relaxation of criminal repression may be justified. The request from Salekhard court was inadmissible, because it did not have and could not have had any concrete legal consequences for the particular case which was considered by that court.
(489.07 Kb)