The civil process has begun

Judicial reform is too serious a matter to be left to the judges.

The Human Rights Council at a special meeting on February 26 with the participation of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation Tatyana Moskalkova and the Chairman of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, Secretary of the Plenum of the Supreme Court Viktor Momotov discussed the draft law submitted to the Duma by the Supreme Court and proposing a number of amendments to the civil procedural legislation.

Presenting the position of the Supreme Court, Professor Momotov explained that these proposals, aimed primarily at reducing the excessive workload on judges, constitute the “third stage” of a larger judicial reform. The “second” will consist in the creation of separate courts of appeal and cassation (the corresponding draft was also submitted to the Duma, but it was not discussed at this meeting of the HRC), and the “first stage” was successfully completed back in 2014, when, on the initiative of the Supreme Court with he united the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation.

The professor seems to have been sincere, although most practicing lawyers would hardly agree that it was a "success." When asked from the audience whether there is a general concept of the reform, which he is talking about here, Momotov honestly answered that as such it does not exist, but the concept is formed by proposals that are discussed in the Supreme Court on the initiative of its chairman V.M. Lebedev: this is "his strategic vision." Tatyana Moskalkova remarked that any kind of normative consolidation of the concept of judicial reform "would remove many questions", including those regarding the discussed package.

The proposals of the Supreme Court were most consistently criticized not even by the HRC members who initiated the discussion, but by Deputy Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation Denis Novak, who said that the relevant objections had already been sent to the Duma. Assessing the proposal to ban representation in a civil court for persons who do not have a higher legal education, he noted that even in similar plans of the Ministry of Justice, it is proposed to do this not immediately, but in stages, after conducting research by region in terms of providing citizens with real legal aid tools and not earlier 2023.

The Ministry of Justice objects to the proposal to raise the price of claims, usually considered in a simplified manner, from 100 to 500 thousand rubles: after all, for many citizens this is an annual salary, and claims against them or from them may relate, for example, to the collection of pensions or arrears in housing and communal services. Not all villages have the Internet, and even for this reason, the proposal to impose on the parties the obligation to monitor the progress of the case in court is premature. As for the proposal to allow judges, as a general rule, not to bother compiling the reasoning part of their decisions, there is some reason for this in some categories of cases, but such a “load reduction” should still not be the rule, but an exception to the rule.

In other speeches and in a note prepared for the meeting by the HRC, the risks for citizens that may be caused by the approval of the bill by the Supreme Court were generally assessed in a similar way. But the very fact of not technical objections on the part of the Ministry of Justice is indicative: this indicates the “arrogance” of the Supreme Court, which did not coordinate its project with the government.

Momotov, who repeated the already well-known arguments in support of “load reduction”, was also convincing in his own way: a significant part of civil proceedings is a meaningless routine. But the judiciary also has other “hidden reserves” – however, their activation requires efforts on the part of judges, and it is tempting to “load” other participants in the proceedings.

Momotov's speech at the Council is the first, after a long break, an attempt at a dialogue between judges and civil society, and it is interested in the reform of the court, certainly not less than the judiciary.

And the innocence shown at this meeting by Professor Momotov is probably not the best quality for an official, but an excellent certification for a judge. The last thing I would like is for the owner of the “strategic vision” in the Supreme Court to regard the speech of his colleague as unsuccessful: at least he said what he thinks and did not speak down.

Widespread criticism of the “reform” initiated by the Supreme Court (perhaps without great desire on its part) leaves room for such a reform (without quotes) to be launched after all.