Judgment will come: media digest (April 11-17, 2013)

Criteria for evaluating the degree of responsibility of judges

The Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia held an international seminar on the issues of disciplinary responsibility of judges. At the meeting, the experts proposed to develop clear criteria for situations when a judge can be held accountable.

A short message about the event was published on the website of the Supreme Arbitration Court : “In the first part of the seminar, moderated by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Tatyana Andreeva, the topics for discussion were international and European standards relating to judicial disciplinary liability, as well as the procedure for disciplinary proceedings against judges in Russia and abroad.

Valentin Pirozhkov, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, moderated the second part of the seminar. The main topic of the discussion was the report prepared by the International Commission of Jurists on the results of the visit of the mission of this organization to Russia in 2012, containing various recommendations regarding the judiciary and disciplinary procedures.”

In addition, a video from the event and the report of the ICJ mission "Protection of justice: Disciplinary proceedings against judges in the Russian Federation" were published on the website .

Rossiyskaya Gazeta gives several quotes: “I think this is the most important question - what should the judge be responsible for,” said Tatyana Andreeva, deputy chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia. “It is also necessary to formulate and indicate in the law cases that under no circumstances may be regarded as grounds for bringing a judge to justice."

Tamara Morshchakova, a retired judge of the Constitutional Court of Russia, presented data from a small sociological study on the topic: what judges are afraid of. It turned out that almost the majority of people in robes are extremely afraid of the cancellation of their court decisions. "93 percent of the respondents said that it is the indicators of the annulment of judicial acts that serve as a colossal warning for them that this may become the basis for bringing to disciplinary responsibility," said Tamara Morshchakova.

Another refereeing nightmare is deadlines. “Almost 95 percent of the respondents are afraid of violation of deadlines,” said Tamara Morshchakova. “But all this should not figure as a reason. A judge cannot be held accountable for the way justice is administered.”

“Vedomosti” reveals the essence of the mentioned report in a little more detail: “In Russia, judges are fired too often, experts noted. The insufficiently clearly regulated system of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility and the excessive powers of court chairmen create conditions for abuse by the authorities and court leadership. As noted in the report, many judges feel constant pressure and feel threatened with dismissal if they do not meet management's expectations.

Partially, the recommendations of the ICJ have already been taken into account, recalled Tatyana Andreeva, deputy chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court. The government has submitted a bill to the State Duma that introduces the concept of "disciplinary offense of a judge" and expands the list of penalties. To the existing options for punishment - there are only two of them: a warning and early deprivation of authority - it is proposed to add a third: a remark. In addition, a six-month statute of limitations is being introduced for bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility, for the absence of which the commission criticized.”

Head of the FSSP: court decisions are not enforced

The meeting in the Moscow City Court, where the work of the bailiff service was discussed, was attended by: Director of the Federal Bailiff Service Artur Parfenchikov, Chief Bailiff of the Russian Federation Alexander Stebakov, Head of the Judicial Department in Moscow Vyacheslav Lipezin, Chairmen of the Moscow District Courts and Chairperson of the Moscow City Court Olga Egorova and her Deputy Galina Agafonova.

All of them expressed their views on the topic of the meeting. A brief review of the speeches is published on the website of the Moscow City Court. A few comments are given here.

“Unfortunately, at present, the interaction between the judiciary of the city of Moscow and the Federal Bailiff Service of Russia for Moscow, provided for by law, is being implemented extremely inefficiently due to the fact that there are significant shortcomings in the work of the service that prevent proper security in courts and the execution of judicial acts. These shortcomings are well known, since they are systemic in nature, they are a constant subject of consideration at ongoing meetings, conferences and other events on the issues of interaction between courts and bailiffs, in addition, according to these shortcomings, from year to year, representatives of the judicial community correspond with the leadership of the bailiff service "- said the Chairman of the Moscow City Court, opening the meeting.

The following is probably a list of those very “significant shortcomings”: “She noted the main shortcomings in the work of bailiffs: poor quality work is being done to ensure the established procedure for the activities of courts, which is expressed in selective and inattentive screening of hand luggage and checking documents proving the identity of visitors to courts ; there is no duty on the floors; courtrooms are not checked; the workplace is left by bailiffs at 18:00 during ongoing court hearings; resolutions on the bringing of persons evading appearance in court are executed poorly and irregularly; there are not enough bailiffs in the courts; there is no bypass of the court premises and territories adjacent to the courts.

True, at the end of Egorova’s speech, she nevertheless comes to the execution of court decisions: “The work on the execution of judicial acts is being carried out poorly; resolutions on the initiation of enforcement proceedings are sent to the courts in violation of the deadlines or are not sent at all; inquiries from the courts about the status of enforcement are ignored in most cases; resolutions on the termination of enforcement proceedings are not sent to the courts; any effective measures for the execution of judicial acts can be achieved only in specific cases after appropriate correspondence with the leadership of the bailiff service on behalf of the Moscow City Court.

The head of the FSSP, Artur Parfenchikov, “noted the positive trends that have emerged in the work on the execution of court decisions in Moscow. Speaking about the problems in the activities of the department, the Director of the Federal Bailiff Service said: “It is impossible to reach the level of 80 percent execution of court decisions, as, for example, in Israel. In Europe, on average, 25-30% of court decisions are executed, and the capital region is no exception.”

Following the meeting, Parfenchikov instructed the chief bailiff of Moscow, Stebakov, to "carefully study the problem areas in the activities of the Office and set the task of being in constant and prompt interaction with the Moscow judicial community." The participants outlined a plan of tasks, and also scheduled the next meeting at the end of the 2nd quarter of 2013 to discuss their implementation.