-
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 2 July 2013 № 16-П on the review of constitutionality of provisions of part one of Article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of B.Gadaev and the request of Kurgan Regional Court
Court:
Constitutional Court
Legal issue: the right of a court – either at its own initiative or upon the motion of the victim of crime - to remand a criminal case to the prosecutors for the purposes of removing obstacles to its judicial consideration in the event when facts testify to the commission by the accused of a more grave crime than he was actually indicted for by the prosecutors.
Ratio decidendi: the contested rules do not correspond to the Constitution – to the extent in which they obstruct an autonomous and independent choice of applicable criminal law provisions by the court in cases when the latter comes to the conclusion that factual circumstances testify to the necessity to categorise the actions of the accused as crimes of greater gravity. A wrong qualification of the offence leads to an unjust sentence which cannot be admitted in a rule-of-law State.
Dissenting opinion:
-
When expanding the indictment with respect to a specific person and demanding to present evidence which would prove his guilt, the judge finds himself bound by such decisions. As a result, his inner independent position is jeopardised, and there may be grounds for suspecting the court of the so-called ‘accusatorial bias’.
(280.69 Kb)