-
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 21 May 2013 № 10-П on the review of constitutionality of parts 2 and 4 of Article 443 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen S.A.Pervov and the request of the judge of the peace of judicial circuit N 43 of the city of Kurgan
Legal issue: the constitutionality of provisions which prevents compulsory treatment of a person, who committed a crime of middle gravity in the state of insanity, in spite of continuous social danger from such person.
Ratio decidendi: the contested regulation is unconstitutional. The gravity of the crime committed by a person in the state of insanity may not serve as a determinative criterion, on the basis of which should be established the possibility of causing by such person of another essential harm or his dangerousness for himself or other people. The violation of constitutional requirements consists in 1) the belittlement of rights of the victims of petty crimes, who find themselves in unequal position as compared to the victims of heavier crimes committed by persons in the state of insanity; and 2) in fact, courts deny persons who committed petty crimes in the state of insanity a necessary and timely (although compulsory) medical assistance, does not protect them from their own socially dangerous behaviour and possible impingements from other persons, which leads to an inadmissible restriction of their rights to health safety and medical assistance, to judicial defense, protection of human dignity and personal security.
Dissenting opinion:
-
Justice Ghadzhiev, concurring, believes that Constitutional Court’s interpretation of Article 52 of the Constitution as a rule of direct effect, allowing for compensation of damage from any crimes in cases when the accused was not determined or his financial resources are insufficient, was premature.
(345.74 Kb)