With the doors wide open. The highest courts decided to comply with the principles of transparency of legal proceedings

The Supreme Court (SC) of the Russian Federation, competing with the Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) of the Russian Federation for influence on the judicial system of Russia, has taken the path of its fellow arbitrators, who are considered more progressive. On December 13, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted a resolution “On the openness and transparency of legal proceedings and on access to information about the activities of the courts”, following in the wake of a similar resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court “On ensuring transparency in the arbitration process”, which was adopted on October 8 this year ( see . article by Leonid Nikitinsky "Court is coming! Online", No. 115 of October 10, 2012 ).

Even if what happened is due to competition, it does not matter at all - the result is extremely positive. Especially against the backdrop of the events that unfolded recently in the Duma, when individual deputies from United Russia tried to introduce a law on restricting the work of the media during trials. There is a precedent: when the PussyRiot trial was going on, the judge, creatively absorbing and rethinking the criminal procedure law, tried to prohibit journalists from broadcasting various kinds of broadcasts from the courtroom, since this could affect the witnesses in the case. The bill turned out to be so odious, even against the backdrop of the legal framework that the Duma is forging without respite by the forces of young deputies, that a little later the initiative was disavowed. Perhaps until better (that is, worse) times.

The Supreme Arbitration Court has long been seen as the driving force behind judicial reform, and its chairman, Anton Ivanov, is renowned not only for his closeness to the current prime minister, but also for his liberal approach to the law. The October decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court is a feast of some kind: “ ... arbitration courts should take into account that in the absence of grounds for conducting a case in a closed court session, the arbitration court does not have the right to refuse admission to the court session to citizens who wish to attend it, including due to insufficient capacity of the courtroom. <...> persons present at an open court session have the right to take notes during the court session, which also implies the possibility for them to publish in text mode about the course of the court session on social networks and in electronic media using their own technical means. Such publications are made without the special permission of the judge <...> cannot be a basis for refusing to film, photograph, video record, broadcast a court session of an arbitration court on radio, television and (or) on the Internet circumstances of the case, disclosure of information relating to the activities of the participants in the process, not classified in the manner prescribed by law, as well as their unwillingness ... ".

At the time of signing the issue for publication, the official text of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not appear on the website of the Supreme Court, but judging by the reports of state agencies, it largely repeats the logic of colleagues. Moreover, the ruling, quoted by the RAPSI agency, says that violation of the principle of publicity may entail the cancellation of court decisions.

The Plenum in its resolution recommended that the Russian Academy of Justice introduce a special course for judges on the application of the norms of openness and transparency of legal proceedings.

Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Alexander Buksman, who probably forgot the practice of the Soviet era, when the resolutions of the plenums were binding not only for the courts, but also for other bodies and officials applying the law, strongly objected to this point.

Chairman of the Supreme Court Vyacheslav Lebedev was forced to enter into an argument, saying that the Academy was established by the Supreme Court, and if only for this reason, the highest court can decide what to teach judges.

One can, of course, assume that, given the professional qualities of the current judges, the requirements of the decree will be ignored. But it must be taken into account that the resolutions of the plenum are in the nature of "guiding explanations." And it's not easy to ignore them. In any case, it will no longer be possible to let people in to meetings only with “tickets” from the competent authorities, as in the case of Sinyavsky and Daniel, or to prohibit recording the words of participants in high-profile processes, as was done in relation to, for example, Frida Vigdorova.