Remove the mantle and leave

On the eve of the annexation of Ukrainian regions, the Constitutional Court left Konstantin Aranovsky - the last judge with a “special opinion”

On the eve of the expected verification for the constitutionality of the agreement on the adoption of new territories to the Russian Federation, Judge Konstantin Aranovsky resigned: “The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considered the personal statement of the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Konstantin Aranovsky to resign until he reached the age of age and satisfied him.” Someone immediately shouted that, they say, "he wanted to jump off." But the legal community reacted to the act of a colleague with great respect. And that's why.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” containing the requirements for a candidate for the position of judge of the Constitutional Court states: “ A citizen of the Russian Federation can be a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation at least 40 years old, with an impeccable reputation, having a higher legal education and work experience in a legal specialty, which has a recognized high qualification in the field of law ”.

What is the "recognized high qualification"? The presence of honorary titles and state awards? Nomenclature history? Or is the recognition of colleagues in the legal workshop? The category, of course, is evaluative. Nevertheless, being familiar with the inner cuisine of the Russian legal world, I can say for sure that everyone knows the real price there. Scientist and lawyer, judge and prosecutor. Including the judges of the KS.

We know who is really a professional, and who is so -so, just pouts his cheeks.

We know exactly who is a real responsible scientist and who is fake. And honestly we try to fight these fake. And fake desperately resist and initiate criminal cases against the creators of Dissernet.

Over the three decades of the existence of the Constitutional Court, 34 judges passed through its composition. Initially, these were lawyers with a truly high and recognized qualification in the field of law. Vladimir Tumanov, Tamara Morshchakova, Anatoly Kononov, Vladimir Oleinik, Nikolai Vitruk, Gennady Zhilin, Eduard Amethysts, Victor Luchin, Oleg Tiunov, Nikolai Bondar. Gradually, the quality of judges decreased. Yes, while most of them have at least some kind of scientific degree.

But also degree of discord. For example, judge Sergei Kazantsev, a former associate professor of the Department of Theory and History of the State and Chairman of the Housing Committee of the City Hall of St. Petersburg, only after his appointment in the Constitutional Court defended his doctoral dissertation "Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Empire: Historical and Legal Research". Or candidate dissertation of Judge Andrei Bushev "Promotions on the legislation of the Russian Federation." Is it comparable to the doctoral works of Konstantin Aranovsky “Constitutional tradition and its distribution in Russian society”, Gadziyev Gadziyev “Basic Economic Rights (Comparative Research) of the Constitutional and Foreign Institutions of Russia and Foreign States” or Tamara Morshchakova “Theoretical Fundamentals of Assessment of the Quality and Organization of Management in Criminal Cases: Procedural, Statistical and Sociological aspects ”, or Nikolai Vitruk“ Problems of the theory of the legal status of a person in a developed socialist society ”? The question is rhetorical.

Judges with recognized high qualifications in the field of law and worked completely differently. With a large number of special opinions, with discussions and interesting solutions. The most active and implacable gradually got rid of. They introduced the maximum age specifically for Tamara Morchakova, forced Anatoly Kononov to resign ... Now, after Aranovsky left the Constitutional Court of lawyers with the same high reputation, perhaps only Gadis Gadzhiev remained there. The court has become completely different. Dependent and submissive. And this is not surprising.

A real scientist is always responsible for the quality of his work to teachers, colleagues, students. And before the country, in the end. The silence of the scientist who sees all the risks of the processes that are taking place, as well as the principle of non -interference he has taken into service, puts an end to the profession. Knowledge is a difficult burden. The scientist has no right to be silent. And if they do not say, then it is necessary to put their certificates on the table, remove shoulder straps or a judicial mantle and leave. Because it is impossible otherwise.

For 12 years of his constitutional refereeing, Konstantin Aranovsky once again proved his recognized high qualifications.

In 2017, he called an unacceptable request to the Ministry of Justice about the possibility of failure to fulfill the decision of the ECHR on the complaint of former shareholders of the Yukos

(1.866 billion euros) and did not agree with the position of the Constitutional Court to restrict passive suffrage of the conditionally convicted (as referred to in his presidential campaign, Alexei Navalny).

In 2019, he stated that in the current conditions, education management in Russia was built in such a way that academic freedom was replaced by a system that issues “work permits”, and criticized the ban on foreigners to own the media. In 2020, Aranovsky did not take part in a court session, which considered the issue of recognizing legitimate amendments to the Constitution, and opposed a special opinion against Russia's recognition of succession in relation to the USSR. “The Russian Federation does not continue in law, but replaces on its territory a state, illegally created, which obliges it to reckon with the consequences of its activities, including political repression,” he formulated his position, which caused a sharp reaction of the Communists. “Even in the conditional legal sense of Russia, there is no need to bring guilt in Soviet repressions on its state identity and replace the state of the victorious and fallen socialism, ” Aranovsky wrote. “This is impossible already because his fault in repressions and other unforgivable atrocities, starting with the overthrow of the legitimate power of the Constituent Assembly, is immense and literally unbearable.”

We do not know exactly in what conditions and under what circumstances Konstantin Aranovsky submitted his resignation. But, I think that people like him have no other choice in the circumstances.