Legal uncertainty arises from the timeframes within which the case can be requested by the Supreme Court leaders / Andrey Gordeyev / Vedomosti

The bill by former United Russia deputy Vladimir Ponevezhsky, which would allow the Supreme Court chairman to take any case for review in exceptional cases and demand its review, was supported by the government's legislative activity commission on Monday. The White House agrees that granting the Supreme Court chairman and his deputy such powers will effectively eliminate judicial errors in relation to those defendants who, for some reason, did not appeal to higher courts. In 2016, at the Council of Judges, Supreme Court chairman Vyacheslav Lebedev announced the preparation of such a bill. The right to supervisory proceedings without a complaint, according to him, is necessary "in the event of fundamental violations of the principles of justice."

On the one hand, everything seems clear: there is an illegal decision, it must be noted, so let's give such an opportunity, says Alexander Bolomatov, partner of the Yust law firm. But there are cases when the question of such cancellation arises after 10 years, and there is an opinion that the possibility of cancellation kills the concept of legal certainty, says the lawyer. In his opinion, decisions made should not be cancelled after long periods of time - this is a sign of the immaturity of the judicial system, the judicial system should not make mistakes from the very beginning.

The idea of the bill is good and sound, but legal uncertainty does arise due to the timeframes in which the case can be requested by the heads of the Supreme Court, notes Vyacheslav Leontyev, a lawyer at the Leontyev and Partners bureau. In his opinion, this is a reaction to the latest high-profile court cases, such as the case of activist Ildar Dadin, the lawyer recalls. "We are talking about the courts correcting blunders themselves, without a shout from the Constitutional Court. But there should always be a reservation on the application of the norm, because we are not only talking about mitigation, the sentence can be revised in any direction," the lawyer says. As a result, it may turn out that those who received two years will receive 10 years after the review, he fears. The problem should be addressed by other methods, for example, by improving the qualifications of the judicial corps: it is not worth taking secretaries who received a correspondence education as judges, says Leontyev.

The government has allowed judicial errors to be corrected