Secrets of the meeting rooms

Judges believe that citizens do not need to know on what basis they are deprived of property

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation came up with an initiative of “judicial reform”, which (if the bill is approved) will allow judges, in particular, when making decisions on civil cases, to be limited to the introductory and operative parts, omitting the motivational (that is, substantive) part.

In the explanatory note, the proposal of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is argued by the need to reduce the burden on judges, and also by the fact that, according to statistics, the parties appeal only every tenth decision, and higher authorities cancel or change them in two cases out of a hundred. The figures rather show that the losers simply give up, and the “burden” can be reduced not only at the expense of the interests of citizens, that is, those for whom, in theory, the expensive pyramid of justice is being erected.

Meanwhile, civil disputes related to property are often conducted between citizens and state (municipal) bodies, and everyone wants not just to receive a writ of execution, but to understand how it was formed. Least of all, judges think about you and me, that is, about those who get into the civil process most often not of their own free will and certainly not for pleasure.

There are two models for resolving any conflict: on the basis of authority and "justice", and on the basis of the norm. The jury does not motivate the verdict with references to the law, but this is the argument against it of professional judges. Judges explain the discrepancies between their decisions and “justice” precisely by “legal positivism” – they say, the law is the law, and this is the highest justice. But "selective justice" easily brings under the law and decisions that are opposite in meaning, and now they can not even be explained. The new scheme proposed by the Supreme Court proceeds from the “esoteric” knowledge that the judge possesses, as it were, by his position, and spending efforts on explaining it is too much: “burden”. However, the jury personifies "justice" and the people, and a professional judge is good if the state! And why on earth to believe him on parole, without arguments?

The draft assumes that "at the request of the party" the reasoning part of the decision will still be made "upon appeal". The participant in the dispute, whom the judge suspects of wanting to find out “excess”, and even complain, will definitely not increase his chances of winning the case. On the other hand, it can be expected that the number of complaints to appeal will even increase at first - many will be curious what kind of “pig in a poke” is there? But this interest will not last long.

In the criminal process, the “special order of consideration of cases”, based on the admission of guilt by the accused, has existed for almost 20 years, and the number of “transactions” is steadily growing: today two sentences out of three are passed this way. In fact, there the judges also dispense with the “substantive part”: an admission of guilt is enough. What is the proportion of self-incrimination, no one knows for sure. The proposal of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to allow judges not to explain decisions in civil cases is, in fact, an attempt to apply the same “simplified procedure” to them. Here, the Kafkaesque "confession of guilt", generated by the lack of hope to at least explain something and achieve something, will be expressed first in the refusal to appeal, and then simply to go to court. The “burden” will be drastically reduced: only “authorities” will file lawsuits, and for citizens, the court as such will lose the remnants of its meaning.

In general, the proposed “procedural revolution” (as its supporters have already dubbed the “reform”) continues the trend towards the closeness of the judicial caste, towards its unwillingness to report to anyone.

Control over the quality of decisions will be impossible, including for higher courts. But what's the trouble? But the professional degradation of the judiciary will not be so obvious: after all, the most terrible secret of the deliberation room is who sits in it.

We do not flatter ourselves with the hope that our criticism will somehow affect the passage of the Supreme Court project in the legislative authorities: after all, there a citizen is treated the same way as in court. But this is a reason to think about what the judiciary is today in Russia, what ideas it promotes in the public space. But is it only the court that is concerned that citizens know and understand as little as possible about the mechanisms of power?