-
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 16 July 2015 № 1787-О on the refusal to admit for consideration the petition of the local organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses of Birobidzhan
Legislation in question: Paragraph 3 of Article 1 and Article 13 of the Federal law “On Counteraction of Extremist Activity”
Legal issue: Whether the contested rules admit the possibility of several contradicting court decisions on the recognition of certain texts as being extremist, and whether there was be a duty to bring the respective religious organisation to participation in the case?
Ratio decidendi: Contrary to the opinion of the applicant, the judicial recognition of certain texts as being extremist may not be grounded upon the subjective perception of such information materials by certain persons. Whereas the verification of the conclusion of a court regarding the extremist nature of certain information material, as being connected to determination and investigation of factual circumstances of a particular case, is outside the purview of the Constitutional Court.
Dissenting opinion:
-
There were grounds to admit the petition for consideration. Overcoming the legal force of judicial decision by way of filing essentially identical suits in various courts (either intentionally or not) is impeded by the existent legislative mechanisms, such as the division between courts which is based on the horizontal jurisdiction (Art 33, Civil Procedure Code) and giving the judicial act a prejudicial significance (Art 134, Civil Procedure Code). Still, cases when such rules are violated and there are several mutually exclusive decisions, do take place, and they cannot be regarded as normal in a rule-of-law State. The Constitutional Court did not answer why among two contradictory decisions it is the one which has been delivered against the applicant and, by the same token, in his absence and even without expert examinations should be preferred – in spite of the other decision in his favour, which came into legal force.
(203.36 Kb)