-
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 2 July 2015 № 1536-П upon the petition of the Dmitrov district court of Kostroma City
Legislation in question: Parts 1 and 2 of Article 28.6 of the Code of Russian Federation on the Administrative Offences
Legal issue: Whether the contested regulation restricts citizens’ rights to obtain professional legal aid in case of their bringing to administrative responsibility?
Ratio decidendi: Administrative offences in the area of traffic rules are wide-spread ones and, by virtue of concrete circumstances of such cases, the failure to immediately provide an advocate at the stage of bringing to administrative responsibility (that is, when making protocol and rendering an act regarding administrative offence) does not violate the constitutional rights of citizens, because in such cases the citizens are not deprived of the possibility to seek assistance of an advocate for the purposes of protection of their rights in court.
Dissenting opinion:
-
(concurring opinion) The position of the Constitutional Court is well-grounded. Still, the person may insist upon participation of an advocate in the consideration of such case. The procedures should be abided, if the citizen lawfully insists on it, even if it appears that in a substantive legal sense he is clearly wrong, that advocate’s assistance is unnecessary to him and does not change anything. Lawful delays and procedures a rule-of-law State may not regards as an excessive burden for itself.
(244.90 Kb)