Skip to main content

Constitutionally Relevant Imperfections of Judicial Authority in the Russian Federation

Abstract

Fundamental drawbacks of the current domestic organizational and legal framework of all three components of judicial authority are considered—structure, proceedings, and status—which are in one way or another inconsistent with the provisions of article 10, part 1 of article 19, part 5 of article 32, part 1 of article 46, part 1 of article 47, clause “l” of part 1 of article 72, part 2 of article 118, and parts 2 and 3 of article 128 of the Russian Constitution. In the author’s opinion, local changes in individual legislative regulations and adjustments of law enforcement practices would not remedy the situation. Scientifically secured development, approval, and implementation of a state project under the working title “A Fair Trial” are necessary to modernize radically and intricately the entire mechanism of Russian justice, which is comparable in scale with the Judicial Reform of 1864.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Interestingly, addressing a plenary meeting of the Constitutional Conference on June 5, 1993, B.N. Yeltsin, without discarding the idea of this state institution, proposed only to change approaches to its formation [4, pp. 519, 523]. The black days of October 1993 crossed out this fruitful idea.

  2. 2.

    This proposal was not passed, apparently, due to an attempt to entrust this body with court functions: the consideration of disputes on case jurisdiction between the Constitutional, Supreme, and Supreme Arbitration courts of the Russian Federation, which would require amendments to the Russian Constitution.

  3. 3.

    Justification of the need for this body and an outline for it, for its authority, and other aspects are proposed by the author in [5].

  4. 4.

    Apropos, the draft Federal Law On Digital Financial Assets, published on January 25, 2018, on the portal of the Russian Ministry of Finance, defines mining as “the extraction of cryptocurrencies by solving mathematical problems” and refers it to entrepreneurial activity. Does it mean that individuals unregistered as individual entrepreneurs have no right to mining? However, there is court practice on this issue already.

  5. 5.

    For example, the draft Law On the Introduction of Amendments to Federal Constitutional Laws Associated with the Creation of Cassational Courts of General Jurisdiction and Appeal Courts of General Jurisdiction, registered in the State Duma under the number 374020-7.

REFERENCES

  1. 1

    S. J. Lec, Myśli nieuczesane (Wydawnictwo Literackie, Kraków, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    “Resolution no. 1 of the VIII All-Russia Congress of Judges of December 19, 2012, ‘On the State of the Judicial System of the Russian Federation and the Main Vectors of Its Development,’” Ross. Yustitsiya, No. 2, 37–49 (2013).

  3. 3

    A. A. Solov’ev, European Models of the Organization and Functioning of the Bodies of the Community of Judges: The Kingdom of Belgium and the French Republic (Mosk. Gos. Univ. im. O.E. Kutafina, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].

  4. 4

    Excerpts on the History Behind the Constitution of the Russian Federation: The Constitutional Commission: Shorthand Reports, Proceedings, Reports (1990–1993), in 6 vols., Vol. 4: 1993, Book 2 (Volters Kluver, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].

  5. 5

    M. I. Kleandrov, On the Council of the Judiciary of the Russian Federation (Norma, Moscow, 2016) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    K. M. Khudolei, “Is the constitutional (statutory) court necessary in a subject of the Russian Federation?,” Vestn. Perm. Univ., Yur. Nauki, No. 34, 391−401 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    E. V. Grishchenko, “Access to the protection of subjective rights within the framework of administrative proceedings in Russia in the context of universal standards of access to justice,” Zh. Konstituts. Pravosudiya, No. 6, 13−21 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    M. I. Kleandrov, “On the necessity to acquire a legal status by unregistered entrepreneurs,” Predprinimatel’skoe Pravo, No. 3, 3−13 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    The Journal of the Congress of the People’s Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, No. 30, Art. 1792 (1992).

  10. 10

    A. K. Gorbuz, M. A. Krasnov, E. A. Mishina, and G. A. Satarov, Transformation of the Russian Judicial Authority: An Integrated Study (Norma, St. Petersburg, 2010) [in Russian].

  11. 11

    Collection of Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, No. 13, Art. 1447 (1994).

  12. 12

    V. N. Demidov, The Constitutional (Statutory) Justice of the Subjects of the Russian Federation As an Institution for the Protection of Human and Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms (Idel-Press, Kazan, 2015) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Resolution of the Council of Judges of Moscow no. 131 of July 1, 2016, On the Observance by a Retired Judge of the Requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation.

  14. 14

    http://www.pravo.ru. Cited February 12, 2018.

  15. 15

    E. Trifonova, “The judicial reform is slowed down,” Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Feb. 28 (2018).

  16. 16

    S. M. Amosov, “Revisiting the goals of justice,” in Russian Yearbook of the Civil and Arbitration Process. 2001 (Norma, Moscow, 2002), No. 1, pp. 1−9 [in Russian].

  17. 17

    M. I. Kleandrov, The Mechanism of a Judge’s Ethical Responsibility: Problems of Formation (Norma, Moscow, 2017) [in Russian].

  18. 18

    M. I. Kleandrov, “Problems of the judicial authority and academic science,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, No. 9 (2014).

  19. 19

    A. G. Kucherena, “Your electronic honor,” Izvestiya, Sep. 26 (2017).

  20. 20

    T. Ya. Khabrieva and N. N. Chernogor, “Law in the conditions of digital reality,” Zh. Ross. Prava, No. 1, 85−102 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    G. A. Gadzhiev, “Is an agent robot a person? (The search for legal forms to regulate a digital economy),” Zh. Ross. Prava, No. 1, 15−29 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. I. Kleandrov.

Additional information

Translated by B. Alekseev

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kleandrov, M.I. Constitutionally Relevant Imperfections of Judicial Authority in the Russian Federation. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 88, 413–422 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618050039

Download citation

Keywords:

  • court
  • judicial authority
  • justice mechanism
  • fundamental drawbacks
  • constitutionally relevant imperfections
  • state project “A Fair Trial”