Dadin through the "thickness"

The precedent meaning of the “Dadine case” is wider than, in fact, its excuse. But also the process of release that has protected on three extra days indicates the “thickness” of the system that will resist any reform

Someday, historians will restore the mysterious path of paper from the Supreme Court about the liberation of Dadin: at what table at what point she was from the evening 22 to the morning of February 26. But this paper itself is fraught with a riddle: after all, the motivating part of the decision of the Supreme Court is still “not unsubscribed”. No one specially slowed down this process anywhere, just civil servants have the right to the weekend, and even more so holidays, as sacred as for Jews Shabat, and there are only responsibilities on the side of citizens (“infidels”), and the main ones to endure and tremble.

This is just that it should be brought into line with the Constitution, but it will be more difficult than counting how many days did not have enough until the recovery of Dadin on the date of his conviction by the Basmanny Court under Art. 212.1 of the Criminal Code.

Will it be written about this in the decision of the Presidium of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation? Or in its motivating part there will be a more complete link to the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the one that peaceful shares, regardless of repetition, cannot be considered as a crime at all? This nuance will indicate the degree of internal solidarity of the judges of the Supreme Court with the judges of the Constitutional Court, that is, to how deeply this constitutional signal has already entered the thickness of the ordinary justice.

While the Supreme Court is swinging after a long “Shabata”, and Dadin thinks that it would still be combined, we turn to the topic “Formation of the judicial (or, more wider - law enforcement) practice, which forms the“ thickness ”.

This returns us to a science dispute about the “precedents”, which in personal and in absentia went between the Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation, until the abolition of the latter by “unification with the Supreme” in February 2014. The practical significance of this dispute was that the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation annually revised dozens of decisions of lower courts with a new decision, and in the practice of the Supreme Court, such “reviews” have been exceptional in recent years.

The Supreme Court prefers to “form judicial practice”, accepting the so -called “guidelines” for all judges of the resolution of the plenums. There are many good and reasoned “plenums”, for example, about the non-disclosure of detention in “entrepreneurial” matters, but their influence on practice is obviously linked in the “thickness” and, in general, strives for zero: while it is formed in some other, implicit way. So it was before the "precedent of Dadin", but now it can take a different look.

Indeed, making a decision on the justification of Dadin, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation not only did not make any breakthrough, but his role was here even more technical. By virtue of amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court, which the president initiated and signed at the end of last year, the Constitutional Court is now authorized to create “precedents”, giving mandatory interpretations to the norms of the law, including not even recognizing them unconstitutional (as Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the decision “in the Dadin case”). Article 79 of the Law on the Constitutional Court in the new version establishes that “the application of ... a normative act or its individual provisions in the interpretation diverging with the data of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” is “not allowed”, and this ban also extends to all court decisions, enters into force immediately, and there is nowhere to appeal it.

Thus, the Constitutional Court not only acquires some features of the legislator in the context of the extreme uncertainty of the Duma lawmaking (for example, by his decision in the “Dadin case”, without canceling Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code, made it excessive and meaningless), but in fact it becomes a kind of supervisory authority over the rest of the judicial system (however, such an opportunity depends on specific complaints on their adoption or failure to consider in the Constitutional Court). This new “supervisory function” of the CS is also fully illustrated by the “precedent of Dadin”: not the supreme, but the Constitutional Court, in fact, made a precedent decision on its justification.

Of course, from a legal point of view, it is more correct to speak not about “precedents” (which leads the discussion to the plane of comparing the so-called Anglo-Saxon and continental systems of law), but about the “precedent value”, which, regardless of terms, is not a template decision, especially higher courts. Giving a precedent by the very nature of the KS decisions of the KS, it is also strictly compulsory power with the help of recent amendments, the president seems to have in mind to reconfigure the entire system of law enforcement practice, entrusting the key role of the Constitutional Court (but not personally Valery Zorkin, which is replaced). For what? Well, probably, just in case, in the order of redistribution of power - and the judicial power is the main power in the sense of the power of legal coercion.

In conditions when the systems of “ships and law enforcement agencies” that have become a “courts and law enforcement agencies” have been controlled for decades have been controlled by the powerful maneuver, such a bypass maneuver, probably should be called witty. But then the “thickness” begins, by its very nature, striving to slow down and distort this signal. If the Kremlin wants to rely on a new institute in a state, which he himself consistently and deprived institutions, he will have to clean the “thickness”: only the corresponding personnel decisions can be considered an indicator of the seriousness of the intentions in the system.