Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

The relevance of the topic of the course work.The relevance of the topic of the course work is determined, in our opinion, by the fact that it covers a wide range of issues relating to the peculiarities of the construction, formation and functioning of the judicial branch of government, on the basis of which the judicial system of the Russian Federation is formed. Also, the relevance of the research topic is due to the theoretical and practical significance of the judiciary in a modern rule of law state. The formation of judicial institutions is one of the necessary elements of the mechanism for ensuring the right to judicial protection, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. The study and analysis of this topic allows us to determine the advantages and disadvantages of the existing system on the basis of which justice is carried out. Also, an analysis of the judicial systems of foreign countries in general, and the Russian Federation in particular, makes it possible to determine the directions, methods and ways of improving and reforming the judicial system of the Republic of Belarus, which, in some way, determines the application of judicial practice of foreign countries in the consideration of certain categories of cases in legal proceedings of our state.

Object of study.The main object of research in this work is the formation of the judicial authorities, which together form the judicial system of the Russian Federation, as well as the principles of its construction, organization and activity. An additional object is the legal relations that develop in the sphere of organization and activities of the judiciary.

Subject of research.The subject of the study is the system of judicial bodies, which are endowed with a special status, as well as the methods of their formation. which allows them to be isolated, and on the basis of which one of the branches of government in Russia functions. Also the subject of the study should include the rules of law governing relations on the creation and organization of judicial authorities in the Russian Federation.

Purpose of the study.The purpose of this work is to study the features of the construction of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, the features of the formation of the judiciary, the organization of judicial bodies, as well as to determine the status of judges who are the direct bearers of judicial power.

Research objectives.For the most detailed and complete study of this topic, it is necessary, first of all, to study the principles of building the judicial system in the Russian Federation, the structure and functions of the judicial bodies that are part of this system, as well as the study of the regulatory framework on the basis of which the judiciary is formed and justice is administered in the Russian Federation, and organizes the activities of the judiciary.

Research methods.When studying this topic, we used the historical method, the comparative legal method, the method of analyzing normative sources, educational and specialized literature.

Brief description of specialized literature on the topic.When writing this work, we used a variety of literature. These include regulatory legal acts, textbooks, teaching aids, and practical aids. Among the textbooks and teaching aids, one can highlight "Law Enforcement Agencies" under the general editorship of prof. I.F. Gutsenko, “Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation,” edited by M.V. Baglay. As for normative legal acts, the following can be mentioned: Federal Constitutional Law "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation" dated December 31, 1996, Law of the Russian Federation "On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation" dated June 26, 1992, Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" Federation" dated July 21, 1994, as well as the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993.

Coursework structureincludes title page, table of contents, introduction, 4 chapters, conclusion and list of sources used.

judiciary constitutional court

Chapter 1. Judicial power and the judicial system of the Russian Federation: general provisions

1.1 The place of the judiciary in the system of government bodies of the Russian Federation

Article 10 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the principle of separation of powers: “State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial power. The bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power are independent.” The courts of the Russian Federation are on a par with the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly, and the Government of the Russian Federation, which exercises state power in the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 11 of the Constitution).

The separation of powers acts as a principle of organizing state power in a legal democratic state, as one of the foundations of the constitutional system. The constitutional principle of independence of the judiciary is objectively determined by the fact that the Constitution of the Russian Federation designates three most important functions of state power. The state is obliged:

) admit,

) observe,

) protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen (Article 2 of the Russian Constitution). The function of protecting rights and freedoms is the prerogative of the judiciary.

The separation of powers is not limited to the distribution of functions and powers between various government bodies, but presupposes mutual balance between them so that none of them can gain dominance over the others or concentrate all power in their own hands. This balance is achieved by a system of “checks and balances,” which is expressed in the powers of state bodies, allowing them to influence each other and cooperate in solving the most important state problems.

The judiciary is included in the system of democracy along with the legislative and executive branches of government. The judicial power ensures the implementation of the most important constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the rights of collectives and the people as a whole. The democratic foundations of the organization and activities of the judiciary itself (participation of judges from the people - jurors, people's assessors and arbitration judges, transparency, independence of judges, competitiveness and equality of the parties) allow us to consider it as a special channel for implementing the will of the people.

As mentioned above, the legislative and executive branches of government have a significant impact on the functioning of the judiciary. The legislative branch, through the adoption of laws, determines the judicial system and the principles of its operation, the competence of the judiciary, the status of judges, the procedure for their consideration of cases, etc. The executive branch trains personnel and organizes logistical support for the activities of courts. But the judiciary has the ability to actually repeal laws, decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation if they are recognized by it as unconstitutional. The execution of court decisions and sentences is the responsibility of the executive branch. None of the branches of government should interfere in the sphere of justice or in the implementation of the functions of the judicial power. For its part, the judiciary should not engage in rule-making, replacing legislative bodies, or interfere with the competence of the executive branch. At the same time, judicial practice has a significant impact on the direction of legislative activity and helps correct mistakes of executive authorities.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the general rule that the judicial system of the Russian Federation is established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal constitutional law. It follows that not a single court included in the judicial system of the Russian Federation can be established by any legal act other than the federal constitutional law. Therefore, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation cannot create special judicial systems, as this would lead to a violation of the unity of the country's judicial system. In addition to constitutional legislation, the legal basis of the judicial system consists of ordinary laws and other legal documents (laws on the status of judges, procedural codes, presidential decrees regulating certain issues of the organization and functioning of the judicial system).

The court is a special state body that, using specific (legal) means and a special apparatus, protects the rights, freedoms and interests of citizens, ensures legality and order through legal proceedings - consideration in strict accordance with the procedural order of cases of various categories and making decisions on their merits.

1.2 Concept and principles of building the judicial system of the Russian Federation

The Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation” (No. 1-FKZ) was adopted by the State Duma on September 23, 1996, approved by the Federation Council on December 26, 1996. Among the current federal constitutional laws, the Law in question occupies a special position, since after the Constitution of the Russian Federation he played a fundamental role in the formation of the current system of judicial authorities in the country. He not only confirmed the existence of federal courts, but also determined the courts of the constituent entities of the Federation - constitutional (statutory) courts and magistrates. This Law includes the following federal courts:

Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation;

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the supreme courts of the republics, the regional and regional and equal courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, district courts, military and specialized courts that make up the system of federal courts of general jurisdiction;

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, federal arbitration courts of districts, arbitration courts of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, making up the system of federal arbitration courts.

By defining the branches of the judicial power and the courts included in each of them, the Law is based on the unity of the judicial system of Russia. As emphasized in the Law, this unity is ensured by:

establishment of the judicial system of the Russian Federation by the Constitution and this Law;

compliance by the courts of the Russian Federation and justices of the peace with the rules of legal proceedings established by federal laws;

application by all courts of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws, generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties, as well as constitutions (charters) and other laws of the constituent entities of the Federation;

recognition of the mandatory execution throughout Russia of court decisions that have entered into legal force;

legislative consolidation of the unity of the status of judges;

financing of federal courts and justices of the peace from the federal budget.

The Law on the Judicial System proceeds from the importance of each link of the judicial system when it emphasizes that judicial power in the Russian Federation is exercised only by the courts in the person of judges, who are involved in the prescribed manner in the administration of justice by jurors, people's and arbitration assessors (Article 1). Reproducing and developing the constitutional principles of justice, the Law is not limited to this. It establishes a ban on the publication in Russia of laws and other regulations that abolish or diminish the independence of courts and the independence of judges (Part 4 of Article 5). Another provision is no less important: failure to comply with a court order, as well as other manifestations of contempt of court, entail liability provided for by federal law (Part 2 of Article 6).

1.3 On the development of the judicial system in Russia

The judicial system of Russia until the 60s of the 19th century. was determined by the provisions of the Institution on Governorates of 1775. As A.F. wrote. Kony, it turned out to be “an incoherent collection of the most diverse decrees, mechanically merging together the Code of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the decrees of Peter and, as the State Council put it in 1835, “types of government” promulgated in 1784, 1796, 1823.

The court was not separated from the administration and had a pronounced class character. The judicial system was extremely complex. The legal proceedings, as before, were clerical in nature, the theory of formal assessment of evidence continued to be applied, there was no publicity of the process, there was no equality of parties, the accused did not have the right to defense. Another vice of the pre-reform court was bribery. This, along with the arbitrariness and ignorance of officials, a phenomenon typical of all levels of the state apparatus here, acquired such a monstrous, all-consuming scale that even the most ardent defenders of the autocratic serfdom were forced to admit it. The overwhelming majority of judicial officials viewed their position as a means of profit and in the most unceremonious manner demanded bribes from everyone who applied to the court. The government's attempts to combat bribery did not produce any results, because... this vice engulfed the entire state apparatus. The extremely low general literacy of judges, not to mention legal literacy, led to the actual concentration of the entire matter of justice in the hands of clerical officials and secretaries.

The pre-reform court was dominated by the inquisitorial (search) form of legal proceedings. The process took place in deep secrecy. The principle of writing assumed that the court decides a case not on the basis of a living, direct perception of evidence, personal familiarization with all the materials of the case, direct oral examination of the accused-defendant, witnesses, but relying on written materials obtained during the investigation. And the evidence was assessed according to a formal system. Their strength was determined in advance by a law that firmly established what could and could not be evidence. The law also established the degree of reliability of the admitted evidence, dividing it into imperfect and perfect, i.e. those that provided the basis for the final verdict and could not be refuted by the defendant. But even among them, recognition especially stood out - “the best evidence of the whole world.” To obtain it, torture was widely used, formally prohibited in 1801, but in practice existed throughout the first half of the 19th century. The shortcomings of the judicial system and legal proceedings caused discontent even among the privileged classes, not only the bourgeoisie, but also the nobility.

It is clear that reforms were needed in the judicial system, and in 1864 they took place. On September 27, 1862, Emperor Alexander II approved the report of Secretary of State V.P. Butkov, which contained a plan for further work on judicial reform. The preparation of projects was now to be carried out by the State Chancellery, but in addition to the office workers, the commission also included representatives of the 11th department and the Ministry of Justice. Butkov was given the right to attract other workers, since the deadline for submitting projects was set very strictly - only six months. The commission included the authors of the “Basic Provisions” and the best legal minds of that time, from all over Russia. In addition to the permanent staff, various experts took part in it - from university professors to police officials. Moreover, the commission openly appealed to the public with a request to assist it in its work.

The prepared projects were considered in the State Council in May - July 1864 and were approved by the emperor on November 20, 1864. In the same year, after lengthy preparation, the documents that constituted the judicial reform as a whole were approved: Institutions of judicial institutions; Charter of criminal proceedings; Charter of civil proceedings; Charter on punishments imposed by justices of the peace. After the revolutions of 1917 and the Bolsheviks coming to power, the old judicial system was completely destroyed, the functions of passing sentences and monitoring their execution were carried out by various “extraordinary committees”, “revolutionary tribunals”, etc. Since 1925, the formation of the Soviet judicial system has been going on, which in its development went through periods of mass repression (30s - 40s) and through a period of slow democratization (the years of rule of the CPSU after the death of Stalin). In the 90s of the twentieth century, after the collapse of the USSR, on the basis of reforming the existing Soviet judicial system, a judicial system was formed that still functions today. Of course, the fundamental condition for building a new system was the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, adopted in 1993.

Chapter 2. Formation of judicial authorities in the Russian Federation

2.1 Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: composition and order of formation

According to the current legislation, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation consists of 19 judges appointed to the position by the Federation Council on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has the right to carry out its activities if it contains at least 3/4 of the total number of judges. The presentation of the President of the Russian Federation is prepared and submitted in compliance with the established procedure. The main provisions of this procedure are defined in Article 9 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Proposals for candidates for the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation may be submitted to the President of the Russian Federation by members (deputies) of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma, as well as legislative (representative) bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, higher judicial bodies and federal legal departments, all-Russian legal communities, legal scientific and educational establishments.

The Federation Council considers the issue of appointing a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no later than fourteen days from the date of receipt of the proposal from the President of the Russian Federation. Each judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is appointed to the position individually by secret ballot.

A person who receives a majority of the total number of members (deputies) of the Federation Council during voting is considered to be appointed to the position of judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. If a judge leaves the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a proposal to appoint another person to the vacant position of a judge is submitted by the President of the Russian Federation no later than one month from the date the vacancy opens.

A judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation whose term of office has expired continues to act as a judge until a new judge is appointed to the position or until a final decision is made on the case initiated with his participation.

The Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court establishes that a judge of the Constitutional Court can be a qualified lawyer with an impeccable reputation, at least 40 years of age and with at least 15 years of experience in the legal profession. A judge of the Constitutional Court is appointed for a term of 12 years. Appointment to this position for a second term is not permitted. The age limit for holding the position of a judge is 70 years. A judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is considered to have taken office from the moment he takes the oath. His powers terminate on the last day of the month in which his term of office expires or in which he reaches seventy years of age. No one has the right to change a judge, no one has the right to interrupt his powers except in the manner and on the grounds established by this Law. The constitutional federal law provides full guarantees of the independence of judges.

A judge is considered to have resigned or been removed if his powers are terminated on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 of Part 1 and Part 2 of Article 18 of the Federal Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. A retired judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is also subject to other provisions of the status of a retired judge established by the Federal Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

2.2 Composition and procedure for the formation of the constitutional (statutory) court of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

The subject of the Russian Federation is largely independent in resolving issues of organizing constitutional (statutory) courts. The choice of one or another option is at his discretion, but within the boundaries of ideas about a democratic rule-of-law state, taking into account the relations (if we follow the principle of unity of state power) that have developed at the federal level in connection with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Individual, insignificant, elements of the organization of constitutional (statutory) courts are reflected in the constitutions (statutes) of the subjects of the Federation. This concerns mainly the manner in which judges are appointed to their positions. Sometimes the size of the court is fixed (in republican constitutions). However, these issues are most fully disclosed in the laws of the subjects of the Federation on constitutional (statutory) courts. Their analysis allows us to see the following:

The numerical composition of these courts ranges from three (Adygea) to nine (Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug) judges. However, more often constitutional (statutory) courts are formed consisting of five judges. The competence of the court is determined by the presence of a qualified majority of judges.

Judges are appointed to office in different ways. One option is for the highest official of a constituent entity of the Federation to submit candidates (proposals can come from authorized bodies and communities) for consideration by the legislative body, which makes the appropriate decision by secret ballot.

Other approaches have also been developed. In Tatarstan, candidates for judges of the Constitutional Court are presented to the State Council by the President and the Chairman of the State Council of the Republic in equal numbers, three people each. Appointments take place in a similar way in the Kurgan region: the Governor of the region and the regional Duma committees have the right to submit two candidates (quota) to the regional Duma. In the Kaliningrad region, the governor and one third of the deputies of the regional Duma have the right to nominate candidates (without guaranteed representation) for appointment by the regional Duma. In Adygea, representation is provided by one candidate each from the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. In the Irkutsk region, proposals for candidates for the position of judges of the Statutory Court (self-promotion is also allowed) are studied by a competition commission specially created by the Governor. In St. Petersburg, where there is a special provision for the appointment of judges of the Statutory Court, the Governor has the right to propose no more than six candidates during the initial formation and subsequently no more than one; groups of deputies of the Legislative Assembly consisting of at least seven people have the right to nominate no more than one candidate, the Council of Judges of St. Petersburg - no more than six candidates during the initial formation of the Court and no more than one subsequently. The candidate who received the largest number of votes in relation to other candidates, but not less than half the votes from the number of elected deputies of the Legislative Assembly, is considered appointed to the position (for a total of seven seats).

Organizational and representative functions in the Constitutional (statutory) Courts are performed by officials - the chairman, deputy chairman and secretary. This is a common composition of the heads of these courts. These officials are elected in different ways: by judges from among themselves in relation to all officials, by judges from among themselves, but in the presence of the Governor and the Chairman of the Legislative Assembly, who have the right to make proposals for candidates; by parliament: a) on the proposal of the President (Head) of the republic; b) at the proposal of the judges of the Court.

When determining the terms of office of court heads, three approaches have emerged:

) specially fixed terms of office for the chairman and other officials are established, usually three to four years.

At the same time, their re-election to these positions cannot be ruled out;

) the terms of office of the named officials are equal to the terms of office of judges;

) terms of office are not fixed, but by default they are, presumably, equal to the terms of office of judges.

In most republics, the powers of a judge are terminated by a decision of the Constitutional Court, which is sent to the president and parliament, and in Adygea also to the judiciary, and is an official notification of a vacancy. In cases of violation of the procedure for electing a judge or his commission of an offense that discredits his honor and dignity, termination of powers is carried out by parliament upon the proposal of the Constitutional Court.

The constitutions and mainly the laws of the republics establish certain requirements for candidates for judges of constitutional courts, relating to their citizenship, age, legal capacity, education, professional qualifications and experience, and moral qualities. As a rule, a citizen of the relevant republic who has reached 35 years of age and is not older than 60 years can be elected or appointed as a judge. In almost all republics, a candidate for judge is required to have a high level of professional knowledge, as well as the moral qualities necessary to perform judicial duties. An indispensable condition is the presence of a higher legal education. 10 years of legal experience.

In the republics that have established constitutional courts, the legislation establishes that the position of a judge is incompatible with a deputy mandate, holding or maintaining any paid position, entrepreneurial activity, or affiliation with political parties and movements. The legislation of the republics of the North Caucasus pays considerable attention to guaranteeing the independence of judges of constitutional courts. They are guaranteed irremovability during their term of office, except for the reasons specified in the laws. The latter, in addition to death, resignation, reaching the age limit, judicial recognition as incompetent, temporary absence or declaration of death, are:

) violation of the procedure for electing judges of the Constitutional Court;

) loss of citizenship of the republic;

) a court conviction that has entered into force;

) committing an offense that discredits the honor and dignity of a judge;

) engaging in or performing actions incompatible with his position;

) the absence of a judge at court hearings or avoidance of participation in voting more than two times in a row without good reason;

) inability to perform their duties for health reasons or other valid reasons for a long time.

2.3 Courts of general jurisdiction: formation procedure, composition

Courts of general jurisdiction are a system of courts that hear criminal, civil and administrative cases. Their tasks include protecting the social system, its political and economic systems, from any encroachment, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation; socio-economic, political and personal rights and freedoms of citizens; rights and legitimate interests of institutions, enterprises and organizations. The activities of the courts are aimed at the comprehensive strengthening of law and order and legality, the prevention of crimes and other offenses, the education of citizens in the spirit of accurate and strict execution of laws, respect for the rights, honor and dignity of citizens.

Courts of general jurisdiction in accordance with the Law About the judicial system of the Russian Federation They are a centralized system, headed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and are divided into two subsystems. One consists of the so-called general courts, which hear ordinary criminal, civil and administrative cases. The other is military courts that administer justice in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and other military units. All courts included in the system of courts of general jurisdiction are divided into sections. Each link includes courts with the same competence and structure. The highest level is the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The subsystem of general courts includes the middle link, consisting of the Supreme Courts of the republics within the Russian Federation, courts of the autonomous region, autonomous districts, regions, territories, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. The lowest level consists of district (city) courts. In addition, justices of the peace are also included in the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

All courts of general jurisdiction can hear criminal and civil cases as courts of first instance. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and mid-level courts also perform the functions of cassation and supervisory authorities.

Supreme courts of republics, regional (regional) courts, courts of federal cities, courts of an autonomous region, courts of autonomous districts are federal courts of general jurisdiction.

In the system of federal courts of general jurisdiction, they occupy the position of mid-level courts, being at the same time the highest judicial bodies of the relevant constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The Law on the Judicial System of the Russian Federation fixes the indicated position of the named courts in the hierarchy of judicial bodies and names only the main functions performed by these courts within the limits of their competence. They are the directly superior courts for district courts located on the territory of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation, and subordinate to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

2.4 Mid-level courts of the general jurisdiction court system

The Supreme Court of the republic, the regional (regional) court, the court of a federal city, the court of an autonomous region, the court of an autonomous district (hereinafter referred to as the regional (regional) and equal courts) are the courts of the second (middle) level of federal courts of general jurisdiction of the judicial system of the Russian Federation . Each of them is recognized as the highest judicial body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in civil, criminal, administrative and other cases under the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction. The regional (regional) and equal courts are the highest judicial body of the subject of the Russian Federation both for federal courts - district and city courts, and for justices of the peace. The regional (regional) and equal courts exercise supervision over the judicial activities of these courts.

The regional (regional) and equal courts consist of a presidium, judicial panels and court staff.

The regional (regional) and equal courts are formed by a chairman, deputy chairmen and members of the court. The chairmen of regional (regional) and equal courts and their deputies are appointed to the position by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, based on the conclusion of the High Qualification Board of Judges of the Russian Federation.

Judges of regional (regional) and equal courts are also appointed by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. But this submission of the President of the Russian Federation is based on the conclusion of the qualification board of judges of the court whose judges are to be appointed.

Territorial (regional) and equal courts, within the limits of their competence, consider cases as a court of first instance and as a court of second instance - in relation to district courts operating on the territory of the corresponding constituent entity of the Russian Federation.

Territory (regional) courts and their equal courts consider, in the manner prescribed by law, cases of cassation appeals and submissions against decisions, sentences, rulings and resolutions of district courts that have not entered into legal force. It follows from this that the regional (regional) courts and their equal courts, being superior courts in relation to the district courts, exercise supervision over their activities. They solve the same problem by considering cases of supervisory complaints and submissions against decisions, sentences, rulings and resolutions that have entered into legal force. Along with this, the regional (regional) and equal courts consider, in cases and in the manner determined by law, civil, criminal and some other cases as a court of first instance. Decisions, sentences, determinations and rulings of regional (regional) and equal courts, both those that have not entered into force and those that have entered into legal force, can be reviewed in the manner prescribed by law by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The regional (regional) and equal courts study and summarize judicial practice, analyze judicial statistics, and exercise other powers granted to it by law.

The mid-level courts of the system of courts of general jurisdiction are endowed with equal competence, have the same structure and basically the same powers. They differ in the number of judges and court staff, which depends on the volume of work of a given court.

A judicial panel consisting of three court members acts as a cassation instance in a higher mid-level court. Cassation proceedings arise in the presence of a cassation appeal brought by participants in the process (parties) and other persons participating in the process, or a protest from the prosecutor.

The presidium of the relevant court acts as a supervisory authority in the regional and equal courts. The presidium consists of the chairman of the court, his deputies and members of the court. The composition of the presidium is approved by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The Supreme Court of the Republic is the highest judicial body of the Republic and supervises the judicial activities of the district courts of the Republic. Within the limits of its powers, the Supreme Court of the Republic ensures a uniform understanding and application of legislation by the courts, protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. The Supreme Court of the republic is vested with the right of legislative initiative in the representative body of the republic and can make proposals to adopt new laws, to amend or repeal existing laws of the republic within the powers determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the constitution of the corresponding republic.

The regional, regional, city court, court of the autonomous region and the court of the autonomous district are elected by the relevant Council of People's Deputies consisting of the chairman, deputy chairmen, court members and people's assessors for a period of five years.

The regional, regional, city court, court of the autonomous region and the court of the autonomous district operates as part of:

) the presidium of the court;

) judicial panel for civil cases;

) Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases.

The presidium of a regional, regional, city court, court of an autonomous region and a court of an autonomous district is formed by the chairman, deputy chairman, who are members of the presidium ex officio, and other judges of the relevant court in a number determined by the President of the Russian Federation.

The composition of the presidium of the court is approved by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The composition of the presidium of the court is approved if there is a positive conclusion from the qualification board of judges of the territory, region, autonomous region, autonomous district, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

The judicial panel for civil cases and the judicial panel for criminal cases of the regional, regional, city, autonomous region and autonomous district courts are approved by the presidium of the court from among the judges of the relevant court.

The chairmen of the judicial panels are approved by the executive committee of the relevant Council of People's Deputies on the proposal of the chairman of the regional, regional, city court, court of the autonomous region and the court of the autonomous district from among the deputy chairmen or members of the court. The chairman of a regional, regional, city court, court of an autonomous region and a court of an autonomous district, if necessary, has the right, by his order, to involve judges of one panel to consider cases as part of another panel.

2.5 System of arbitration courts. procedure for the formation and activities of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation

Arbitration courts are federal bodies. The system of arbitration courts consists of:

· Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation;

· federal arbitration courts of districts;

· arbitration courts of republics, territories, regions, cities of federal significance, autonomous regions, autonomous districts.

This is a three-tier system, which itself is an integral part of the judicial system of the Russian Federation.

Arbitration courts administer justice in civil cases. They have jurisdiction over cases of economic disputes arising from civil, administrative and other legal relations:

) between legal entities, citizens who have the status of an individual entrepreneur, acquired in the manner prescribed by law;

) between the Russian Federation and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, between the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Economic disputes resolved by the arbitration court, in particular, include disputes:

ü about disagreements under an agreement, the conclusion of which is provided for by law or the transfer of disagreements under which to the resolution of an arbitration court has been agreed upon by the parties;

ü about changes in conditions or termination of contracts;

ü about non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of obligations;

ü on recognition of property rights;

ü on the claim by the owner or other legal owner of property from someone else’s illegal possession;

ü about a violation of the rights of the owner or other legal owner, not related to deprivation of possession;

ü on compensation for losses;

ü on invalidation (in whole or in part) of non-normative acts of state bodies, local self-government bodies and other bodies, if these acts do not comply with laws (other normative legal acts) and violate the rights and legitimate interests of legal entities and citizens with the status of individual entrepreneurs;

ü on the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation;

ü on recognizing as not subject to execution a writ of execution or another document, according to which the collection is carried out in an indisputable (non-acceptance) manner;

ü on appealing the refusal of state registration or evasion of state registration of a legal entity or citizen having the status of an individual entrepreneur, and in other cases when such registration is provided for by law;

ü on the collection of fines from legal entities and citizens with the status of individual entrepreneurs by state bodies, local government bodies and other bodies that exercise control functions, unless federal law provides for an indisputable (non-acceptance) procedure for their collection;

ü on the return from the budget of funds written off by bodies exercising control functions in an indisputable (non-acceptance) manner in violation of a regulatory legal act.

The arbitration court considers other cases, including:

on establishing facts significant for the emergence, change or termination of the rights of legal entities and citizens with the status of individual entrepreneurs in the field of economic activity;

on the insolvency (bankruptcy) of legal entities and citizens with the status of individual entrepreneurs.

In some cases, the arbitration court has jurisdiction over economic disputes and other cases involving entities that are not legal entities and citizens who do not have the status of an individual entrepreneur. The arbitration court also considers cases within its jurisdiction involving foreign organizations, organizations with foreign investments, international organizations, foreign citizens, stateless persons engaged in entrepreneurial activities, unless otherwise provided by an international treaty of the Russian Federation. Other cases may also fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitration court [Article 22, 12].

The system of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation is headed by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. This is a higher court in relation to the federal arbitration courts of districts and arbitration courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

It is the highest judicial body for resolving economic disputes and other cases considered by arbitration courts, exercises judicial supervision over their activities and provides clarifications on issues of judicial practice.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is formed by the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and members of the Court. The Chairman is appointed to the position by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation, based on the conclusion of the qualification board of judges of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. Deputy Chairmen and other judges are appointed in the same manner, but additionally the representation of the Chairman of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is required.

The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, created in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, can be abolished only by amending the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Chapter 3. Legal status of judges of the Russian Federation

3.1 The concept of the legal status of a judge in the Russian Federation, its elements

The legal status of judges is a special judicial institution that determines the legal status of a judge as a statesman. The legal status of a judge is established by Articles 119 to 122 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the Federal Law “On the Status of Judges of the Russian Federation,” which is a fundamental document regulating all aspects of the exercise of their powers by judges, as well as guarantees of their independence.

The status of judges consists of many elements provided for by law:

.Judges are persons who perform their duties on a professional basis.

2.Depending on their work experience, position held and other circumstances, they are assigned qualification classes (from 5th to 1st and higher).

.Judges are subject to certain requirements and restrictions:

· comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws;

· avoid anything that could diminish the authority of the judiciary, damage the reputation of the judge and call into question his objectivity in the administration of justice (for example, personal connections that could cause damage to the reputation);

· cannot be a deputy (simultaneously with judicial work), an arbitrator or an arbitrator;

· does not have the right to belong to political parties and movements, support them financially, publicly express their political views, or participate in political actions;

· does not have the right to engage in entrepreneurial activities or other paid activities, except for scientific, teaching and other creative activities (this activity cannot be financed only at the expense of foreign states, international and foreign organizations, foreign citizens and stateless persons).

4.Judges are independent and subject only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws. They are not accountable to anyone, and interference in the activities of judges entails criminal liability.

5.The requirements and orders of judges when exercising their powers are mandatory.

.The judges are irremovable, i.e. they cannot be appointed to another position or transferred to another court without their consent. “According to Articles 121, 122 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, judges in the Russian Federation are irremovable and inviolable, therefore, proposals aimed at sharply reducing these most important guarantees of the independence of a judge seem fundamentally unacceptable. Adoption in full of the proposed norms may lead to the loss of independence by the courts and to their dependence on executive authorities at all levels: from the district level to the federal districts."

.The powers of judges are not limited to a certain period, except in cases provided for by law, but they can be suspended or terminated on the grounds specified in the law. The maximum age for holding office is 70 years.

.Judges are inviolable. This is mainly due to the special procedure for bringing them to criminal and administrative liability. It should be borne in mind that judicial immunity is not a personal privilege of a judge, but a means of protecting public interests, primarily justice.

.They have the right to resign, i.e. for honorable resignation or honorable removal from office.

For committing disciplinary offenses, they are subject to disciplinary liability in the form of a warning or early termination of office. “Long-term practice has shown that the absence of administrative and disciplinary responsibility for judges in no case negatively affects the state of affairs in justice.

In cases of judges committing offenses at work or in everyday life that discredit the honor and dignity of a judge, the qualification boards terminate their powers, and if the act is insignificant, they warn about the inadmissibility of such actions, which ends the problem. Federal laws provide for measures of material support and social protection of judges, and in order to protect life, health, and property, security measures may be applied (personal security, home security, issuance of weapons, change of appearance, etc.).

.All judges have the same status and differ only in their powers (competence). Unity of status means the equality of judges within the judicial community, equal protection of their rights, and the imposition of the same responsibilities and restrictions. The peculiarities of the legal status of certain categories of judges are determined by federal constitutional laws, federal laws, and in cases provided for by them, also by the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Having defined what the status of judges is and having examined its elements, we can conclude that, in accordance with the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation,” judges are the bearers of judicial power in the state. Only the courts, represented by judges, own all judicial power in the Russian Federation. This imposes a huge responsibility on those who are entrusted by law with the authority to administer justice, the ability to resolve issues related not only to deciding the fate of individual members of society, but also life itself. We also saw that, according to Art. 2 of the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” “all judges in the Russian Federation have a single status and legal status, enjoy uniform, for the entire territory of Russia, legal guarantees for the implementation of judicial activities, guarantees

social and legal protection, uniform standards of material support

In addition to the Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”, there are a number of documents, both laws and other regulations, also concerning the specifics of the implementation by judges of their professional duties, regulating the specific conditions for the conduct of judicial activities (for example, “Regulations on the qualification certification of judges” dated May 13 1993, Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the appointment of judges of military courts” dated March 13, 1995, etc.).

3.2 Requirements for candidates for the position of judge

In accordance with Article 11 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation,” judges are persons vested with the authority to administer justice in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and who perform their duties on a professional basis.

Current legislation establishes that all judges in Russia have the same status and differ only in powers and competence. The high status of judges is also determined by the presence of established high requirements for candidates for the position of judge.

Thus, judges can be citizens of the Russian Federation who have reached the age of twenty-five, have a higher legal education and have worked in the legal profession for at least five years. The Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” (Article 4) detailed the constitutional requirements regarding age and length of service in relation to what position in the judicial system a particular judicial candidate is applying for. A judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, for example, can be a person who has reached the age of 40 and has at least fifteen years of experience in the legal profession (candidates for judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation have an increased standard of requirements for the level of their professional knowledge. They must have not only higher legal education, but also have a “recognized high qualification in the field of law”; a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation - who has reached the age of 35 and has had such experience for at least ten years; court of a federal city, court of an autonomous region, court of an autonomous district, district (naval) military court ("When appointing judges of military courts for length of service in the legal profession, candidates for these positions shall have their period of military service in officer positions counted"), Federal Arbitration Court districts - having reached 30 years of age and having at least seven years of experience; a judge of an arbitration court of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a constitutional (statutory) court of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation, a district court, a garrison military court, as well as a justice of the peace - who has reached 25 years of age and has worked in the legal profession for at least five years.

It should be noted that the “legal profession” means work in the judiciary, the prosecutor’s office, the bar, in the legal departments of government bodies, public associations and commercial structures, as well as scientific and teaching activities in the field of law.

The norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation determine the possibility of establishing additional requirements for judges by federal law. First of all, they are obliged to strictly comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws.

The high status of a judge not only obliges him to be professionally trained, possess the necessary set of business qualities, and be able to organize his work, but also requires the presence of certain qualities, without which the work of a judge is impossible. This person must have a high internal culture, have qualities such as decency, goodwill, tolerance, correctness, balance, etc. “The right to judge others must be earned by the judge’s impeccable behavior from the point of view of law and morality in the performance of official duties, as well as in everyday life. It is no coincidence that the Code of Honor of Judges of the Russian Federation establishes special rules of conduct for judges when carrying out procedural activities (Article 2) and in extra-official activities (v.3)." The code of honor of judges requires that persons who have not committed discreditable offenses be appointed to the position of judge. But they do not indicate what actions of a judge or a candidate for the position of a judge should be considered discreditable misconduct. Determining the severity of the offense rests with the qualification board of judges.

“To confirm that an applicant for the position of a judge does not have any diseases that would prevent him from being appointed to the position of a judge, a preliminary medical examination is carried out. The list of diseases that prevent him from being appointed to the position of a judge is approved by a decision of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation based on a proposal from the federal executive body in the field of health care. Form a document certifying the absence of diseases that prevent appointment to the position of a judge is approved by the federal executive body in the field of health care.”

Having studied the requirements for the position of a judge, we can conclude that the criteria are quite high, since the rank of a judge is very high, but the constantly increasing workload, the lack of often the most basic working conditions, and relatively low wages have made the work of a judge of little prestige. In this regard, difficulties arise with the selection of candidates for judge positions. There are often cases when newly appointed judges, after a short period of time, for one reason or another, professional or personal, are unable to perform the work of a judge.

3.2.1 Special procedure for selecting judges

Every citizen of the Russian Federation who meets the requirements for a candidate for the position of a judge of the relevant court has the right to apply to the Qualification Board of Judges with an application for recommendation for this position.

The Qualification Board, within its competence, considers the application and, taking into account the results of the qualification exam, gives a conclusion on recommending or refusing the candidate for the position of judge. The qualification examination for the position of a judge is taken by an examination commission attached to the justice authority. Its personal composition is approved by the relevant qualification board of judges. The results of the qualification exam are valid for three years from the date of passing it and throughout the entire period of work as a judge. Next, the qualification board submits an opinion on the recommended candidate to the chairman of the relevant court. With the consent of the chairman, the candidacy is submitted to the government body, which vests the candidate with the powers of a judge. “The main reasons for refusing to give a positive opinion to candidates for the position of judge, qualification boards most often pointed to insufficient knowledge of the current legislation, age, negative characterizing data from previous places of work, committing a discreditable act in the past, lack of necessary business and moral qualities, as well as the establishment during checks of negative data about the candidate and his close relatives, facts of unsettled family relationships, information about the candidate’s state of health.” The law determined that a repeated appeal to the Qualification Board of Judges with a similar application is allowed no earlier than one year from the date of the conclusion.

In accordance with Article 14 of the Regulations on Qualification Boards of Judges, the board has the right to receive the information necessary to exercise its powers. Information about persons applying for the position of judge is no exception. In the methodological letter of the Higher Qualification Committee it is recommended to request from the relevant authorities information about the presence or absence of a criminal record both from the candidate himself and from his close relatives, the opinion of the chairman of the court and judges on the possibility of appointing a specific person to a vacant position in their court, to request references not only from the latter , but also from previous places of work over the past five to ten years.

3.2.2 Empowerment of judges

“From the very moment of assuming the office of a judge, a citizen crosses the boundaries of ordinary civil status, entering a different dimension of his life. Thus, a citizen first appointed by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation or the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to the position of judge can begin to exercise judicial powers only after the public taking of the oath. Taking the oath of a judge is not only an act of a solemn oath to honestly and conscientiously perform one’s duties, to administer justice, obeying only the law, to be impartial and fair, as the duty of a judge and conscience dictate. Taking the oath of a judge is at the same time an act testifying to. recognition by society, the state and the citizen himself of the independence of the judge even from those authorities that appointed him to this position.”

“The appointment of candidates for the positions of judges is made only if there is a positive conclusion from the relevant qualification board of judges.”

Judges of the Constitutional Court are appointed to office by the Federation Council on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation, taking into account the opinion of the Constitutional Court.

Judges of the Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Court are appointed by the Federation Council on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation, taking into account the opinion of the Chairman of the Supreme or Supreme Arbitration Court, respectively.

Judges of other Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction and judges of Arbitration Courts are appointed to office by the President of the Russian Federation on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme or Higher Arbitration Court, taking into account the opinion of the legislative body of the subject and the qualification board of judges.

Magistrates are either elected by the population of the judicial district, or appointed to the position by the legislative authorities of the subject.

Judges of the Constitutional Charter Courts are appointed in accordance with the legislation of the given subject.

3.3 General problems of the legal status of judges and prospects for the development of the judicial system in the Russian Federation

Despite the difficulties and sometimes opposition to the development of judicial reform, it can be stated that the judicial power has taken hold and that it is capable of protecting human rights, the interests of society and the state.

One of the important achievements in the field of justice was the enshrinement in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of guarantees of independence, irremovability and immunity of judges, without which it is impossible to ensure the exercise of judicial powers.

Achievements in the formation and development of the judiciary are obvious, but it should be noted that the advancement of judicial reform is hampered by a number of negative factors that significantly affect the efficiency of the courts and the accessibility of justice, which causes justified complaints from citizens.

In light of this direction of the country’s internal policy, it is necessary to emphasize that no matter how perfect the judicial system is, it cannot function without adequate support for its activities by the state. The absence of such provision deprives the judiciary of both independence and autonomy.

The currently established level of material support for judges does not correspond to their high status, the volume of work they perform, and is completely inadequate to the responsibility that is entrusted to them as bearers of judicial power. The wages of court staff also remain low.

To date, problems related to ensuring the security of courts, the safety of judges, paying salaries to the families of deceased (deceased) judges, providing judges with housing, as well as insurance issues and some others have not been resolved. Due to the lack of funds, work on computerization and information support for the activities of courts is proceeding at a slow pace.

In the process of judicial reform, a tremendous amount of work has been carried out, as a result of which a simple and understandable court system has been built in Russia. Along with this, thanks to the active position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, councils of judges, qualification boards of judges and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, an efficient judicial corps consisting of the most qualified lawyers has been formed. “Already at the very beginning of the formation of the modern judicial system of Russia, when approving the Concept of judicial reform, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR decided to consider as one of the most important directions of judicial reform the improvement of the system of guarantees of the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law.”

In these conditions, all that remains is to systematically resolve issues of further development and improvement of the judicial system, legal proceedings and proper organizational, primarily personnel and financial, support for judicial activities.

In this case, I believe that in the coming years the efforts of federal government bodies and the judicial community should be aimed at:

· strengthening the judicial system with highly qualified judges and court staff;

· providing courts with the necessary financial resources and material and technical resources;

· ensuring the security of courts and the safety of judges not only through the practical implementation of the provisions of the Federal Law "On State Protection of Judges, Law Enforcement Officials and Supervisory Agencies", including the need to form special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia in order to ensure the safety of judges, but also through transfer to the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, from the jurisdiction of the Russian Ministry of Justice, the bailiff service to ensure the established procedure for the activities of courts;

· resolving problems related to insurance and payment of compensation to the families of deceased (deceased) judges, including retired ones;

· providing judges with living quarters in accordance with the procedure established by law;

· increasing demands on judges to fulfill their professional duties and comply with the Code of Honor of Judges of the Russian Federation;

· ensuring the implementation of the principles of publicity and openness of justice, including through the interaction of courts with the media.

“Of course, the courts still have problems, and the judicial and legal reform, by all accounts, has not yet been completed; significant steps need to be taken to obtain a legal system that complies with the principle of building a rule-of-law state proclaimed by the Constitution.”

Chapter 4. Problems of the formation and activities of judicial authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

Recently, activity on the creation of judicial authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation has noticeably intensified. A certain development has occurred in the field of constitutional (statutory) justice of the subjects of the federation. New constitutional courts have emerged and relevant laws have been adopted. In this regard, one cannot fail to note in particular the positive role played by the draft model law “On the Statutory Court of a Subject of the Russian Federation,” prepared in the Office of the Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of Russia. However, despite some progress, the process of formation of constitutional (statutory) justice in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is still far from complete, since in the vast majority of regions there are still no courts of this type, but there is not even the necessary legislative framework.

The reasons for this situation are generally known and have already been repeatedly discussed by judges of constitutional (statutory) courts. The main ones are recognized as the absence in the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation” of a mandatory norm for the creation of such courts (the current version of Article 27 leaves this issue at the discretion of the state authorities of the constituent entities of Russia). The status of these bodies as courts of federal subjects, financed from the local budget.

The well-known Resolution of the Constitutional Court of Russia on certain provisions of the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation” dated April 11, 2000, which approved the right of courts of general jurisdiction to recognize laws and other regulatory legal acts as invalid, did not contribute to the development of constitutional (statutory) justice in the constituent entities of the federation. By shifting the emphasis on protecting the rule of law towards courts of general jurisdiction, it had a restraining influence on the development of constitutional (statutory) justice in the regions.

Currently, judicial reform in Russia is very close to the creation of administrative courts. The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation has already adopted the corresponding bill in the first reading.

It is necessary to clearly and consistently follow the rule according to which constitutional justice, both at the federal and regional levels, resolves issues of law. It follows from this that all disputes concerning normative legal acts should be included in the exclusive jurisdiction of constitutional courts.

There are a number of controversial provisions that can lead to problems in the relationship between the competence of constitutional (statutory) and administrative courts. One of them is the transfer to administrative justice of disputes between public authorities of the Russian Federation and public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, transferred by the President of the Russian Federation to the Supreme Court of Russia in accordance with Article 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and disputes between public authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

These rules do not contain any reservations that would clearly and unambiguously delimit these disputes. Meanwhile, to the extent that these disputes concern disagreements about competence, they should be subject to the jurisdiction of constitutional, and not administrative, courts. At the federal level, this is enshrined in part 3 of article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”. Similar norms exist in regional laws on constitutional (statutory) courts.

Conclusion

One of the principles of the judiciary is that its exercise is entrusted only to specially established government bodies - the courts, which differ from the bodies performing legislative and executive functions. This difference is expressed not only in the specifics of judicial powers, but also in the order of formation of courts.

The peculiarities of the functions they perform require that courts be formed and act in compliance with special rules - rules that would be fundamentally different from those established for legislative and executive bodies.

It is enough to note that currently courts of all types and levels are formed in compliance with the procedure established by law. Its implementation is intended to ensure an impartial selection of judges capable of professionally competently and honestly reviewing and resolving cases within their jurisdiction.

The achievement of this goal is intended to be facilitated, in particular, by the establishment of a system of guarantees to prevent the penetration of incompetent and immoral people into the judiciary. Such protective equipment characteristic of the judiciary. The law does not establish detailed rules for the formation of legislative and executive authorities. Judges are required to have a high level of training and competence, since judicial errors are fraught with very serious, sometimes irreversible consequences for the life, health, freedom, rights and legally protected interests of specific people.

An essential point characterizing the construction of the judiciary is ensuring their independence, protecting them from outside influence both externally and internally (from higher authorities and judicial authorities).

The specificity of the court as a judicial authority also lies in the fact that special rules and procedures are established for its activities. These procedures, reflecting universal human experience, strictly limit everything that should happen in court when considering a matter within its jurisdiction. Their main goal is to provide a legal, informed and fair solution.

The judicial system is independent. None of the branches of government should interfere in the sphere of justice or in the exercise of the functions of the judiciary. The judicial system of the Russian Federation is established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal constitutional law. The federal constitutional law “On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation” enshrines the unity of the judicial system. The main, most important functions of the judiciary are: the function of administering justice, judicial control (supervision) over the legality and validity of the application of procedural coercive measures, interpretation of legal norms, official certification of facts of legal significance.

The judicial authorities carry out their activities on the basis of the laws of the Russian Federation and the principles enshrined in the constitution. These are the principles and norms that determine the relationship of a citizen of the Russian Federation with the judiciary, the principles that determine the organization of the judiciary, as well as the principles that determine the functioning of the judicial system.

The legal status of judges, their rights and obligations, the procedure for appointment and removal are regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges” of June 26, 1992 (with subsequent amendments and additions). All judges have the same status. Judges exercise judicial power on the basis of the principles of autonomy, independence, irremovability and inviolability.

The system of judicial authorities of Russia includes: the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Federation, the system of courts of general jurisdiction, headed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as the system of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation.

Thus, based on familiarization with some educational and other literature on this topic, certain conclusions can be drawn. Judicial power is the ability exercised by the courts to influence people's behavior and social processes through the use of legal measures of influence. The administration of justice is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary. The judicial system is a set of courts built in accordance with their competence, the tasks assigned to them and the goals set for them.

List of sources used

REGULATORY LEGAL ACTS

1.Constitution of the Russian Federation. (adopted 12/12/1993);

2.Federal Constitutional Law "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation" No. 1-FKZ of December 31, 1996;

.Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" No. 1-FKZ of July 21, 1994;

.Federal Constitutional Law "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" No. 1-FKZ of April 28, 1995;

.Law of the Russian Federation of June 26, 1992 No. 3132-1 “On the status of judges in the Russian Federation.”;

.Federal Constitutional Law "On Military Courts of the Russian Federation" No. 1-FKZ of June 23, 1999;

.Federal Law "On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation" No. 188-FZ of December 17, 1998;

.“Regulations on qualification boards of judges” (approved by the Higher Qualification Board of Judges of the Russian Federation on July 15, 2002);

.“Code of Honor for Judges of the Russian Federation” (approved by the Resolution of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation dated October 21, 1993);

.Federal Law of January 10, 1996 No. 6 FZ “On additional guarantees of social protection of judges and employees of the courts of the Russian Federation” (adopted by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on December 8, 1995);

.Resolution of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR "On the Concept of Judicial Reform in the RSFSR" dated October 24, 1991 N 1801-1 // Gazette of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. 1991. N 44;

1) Court in the ancient states on the territory of Russia

The court in the ancient states on the territory of Russia is reconstructed using the examples of Scythia, Bosporus, Khazaria.

Scythian customs make it possible to identify an adversarial trial and an investigative court. The king's adversarial court was held to resolve disputes between community members. The loser in such a court was subject to the death penalty, the winner was honored and respected. Disputes between community members could be heard in the court of priests, which took place in an area free from state jurisdiction. There, with the priests, one could get refuge from blood relatives or enemies.

The court and process of Bosporus were the same as in ancient Greece, i.e. adversarial litigation between a plaintiff and a defendant. It is precisely known about the presence of judicial institutions in Panticapaeum and Chersonesos. The trial was based on testimony, and documents of obligations were used as evidence. Sureties and representation in court of the interests of third parties were allowed. Less is known about criminal law and criminal procedure. The sources speak of crimes against the state, the king, officials, and violation of the oath. Criminal penalties include the death penalty and confiscation of property. In a number of cases, extradition of criminals was used.

The Khazar Kaganate was different from previous state associations. Little is known about the court and process in this first feudal and early medieval state in southern Russia. It is known, in particular, that the internal administration and court of the subject peoples remained intact and the corresponding powers were vested in the nobility of the conquered peoples. The Khazar state was headed by the Kagan, who also had the right of the highest court. In Khazaria there were two judicial and police institutions: the highest palace subordinate to the kagan and the lower palace subordinate to the king. Some of the kagans paid sufficient attention to the consideration of court cases and personally made judicial decisions. The second person in the state was the king (vizier), who had the highest executive power, he also had judicial power.

Using the examples of ancient states, one can observe different levels of organization of the judiciary and the development of the process. Unlike the Bosporan court, which had much in common with the metropolis, among the Scythians and Khazars the court was archaic, corresponding to the tribal structure of society characteristic of primitive society and early statehood.

2) Court and process in the Old Russian state

In the 7th - 9th centuries, the East Slavic tribes observed an intensifying process of formation of statehood, and, consequently, state law. History of the Russian Court: a textbook. - M.: Prospekt, 2013. - P. 20..

In the Old Russian state, the prince had the highest judicial power; there were no restrictions on the competence of this court. The trial took place in the "prince's court" - not only the residence of the prince, but also the place where judges and tiuns (assistants to governors) sat. The prince’s governors, the “posadniks,” also had the right to court. Some of them complained about the right to trial without reporting to the prince for the most dangerous crimes (murder, robbery). In ancient Rus' there was no distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. In court, not only witness testimony took place, but also an oath (“company”), a duel (“field”) and moral responsibility to the “world.”

3) Court and trial in Novgorod and Pskov

The Novgorod judicial charter spoke about the judicial system of the state, established the competence of the courts of the archbishop, mayor and thousand (prince). Structurally, the court was divided into councils. For example, the tysyatsky had his own government. The court was convened in Novgorod three times a week, and visiting sessions were also organized in Novgorod cities. Cases in court had to be decided within a certain time frame and regularly reported to the archbishop.

Otherwise, the judges were fined. The governor, the thousand, judges, clerks, jurors, narrators and solicitors, clerks, reporters and bailiffs were involved in the court in Novgorod. If the court was ecclesiastical or princely, then the archbishop and the prince were present, respectively.

The Pskov judicial charter was the main source of law in this feudal republic. The veche and bratchina (community court) took an active part in justice. The prince did not have the right to judge alone. In Pskov the court was adversarial in nature. There was also an institute for pre-trial preparation of the case - the code. During the trial, representation of the parties was allowed, which was carried out through accomplices.

Officials or interested persons could not act as accomplices. The court's decision was considered final and was not subject to appeal. Failure to appear in court meant a loss for the non-appearing party.

The winning party was given a letter, on the basis of which the court decision was executed. The Pskov court applied the following types of punishment: the death penalty and a fine in favor of the state. Court fees were collected.

4) Court and process in the Russian state according to Code of Laws of 1497 and 1550

The code of law of 1497 indicates two types of court: higher and lower. The Supreme Court consisted of three instances:

The highest court was headed by the chairman of the boyar duma in the presence of boyars and senior judges; the decisions of this court were final and not subject to appeal;

Boyar court, which was supposed to report the case to the Grand Duke; the prince had the final decision;

Court for special cases presided over by a boyar; decisions of this court could be appealed to higher courts.

The lowest court in the regions (counties and volosts), divided into judicial districts, was chaired by governors. This trial was adversarial and included representatives of local communities. The decision of this court was preliminary, it could be appealed to a higher court.

The Code of Law of 1550 abolished the court of the Grand Duke and replaced it with the court of the boyars and okolnichy. The Code of Laws had two forms of court: adversarial and inquisitorial (in criminal cases). The punishment system was built on the basis of intimidation as a warning to other criminals. Not only oral but also written evidence could be present as factual evidence during the investigation. The result of the development of law according to the grand ducal and royal codes of law was the establishment of a uniform judicial system for the entire country, not separated from the state administration.

5) Court in Russia under Peter I

The strengthening of the judiciary was interconnected with socio-economic reasons, internal political struggle and the Northern War. History of the Russian Court: a textbook. - M.: Prospect, 2013. - P. 55.. The highest judicial power in such a form of government as an absolute monarchy was exercised by the king, who did not have to motivate his decision in any way. But Peter I considered only those cases in which he saw the most dangerous crimes against the autocracy and the state.

The next judicial authority after the king was the Senate. Senate decisions were considered final and were not subject to appeal. The Senate considered cases referred by lower judicial institutions, but the Senate could also be the court of first instance in the most important political cases and malfeasance. Subordinate to the Senate were collegiums that also had judicial functions.

The provinces had provincial and city courts. In addition, there were courts for townspeople, a church class court, and landowners had the right to try their peasants for minor crimes. The competence of civil and military courts was also differentiated.

The judicial process during the reign of Peter I developed in two directions. Focusing on Europe, the tsar sought to borrow more progressive, civilized principles of the judicial system. But in practice, what resulted was the development not of an adversarial court, but of the widespread use in court of a confession obtained through torture of the accused, which brought the court of the era of Peter I closer to the gloomy medieval Inquisition.

6) Court in the second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries

The court under Catherine II continued to remain class-based. At the head of this system was the empress herself, who was against the separation of powers even while maintaining an unlimited monarchy. The highest authorities were the Senate and the Synod. In addition to the judicial power, the Senate also exercised the functions of prosecutorial supervision through provincial prosecutors. The Synod was in charge of spiritual issues and matters related to church and civil law.

The Admiralty and Military Collegiums were in charge of naval and military vessels, respectively. For the civilian population, in accordance with the class division of society, courts with different powers were established. At the head of this system were governors general and governors with provincial government, chambers of civil and criminal courts. The lower authorities were the upper zemstvo court with civil and criminal departments, upper and lower reprisals, volost reprisals, and noble guardianship. These courts were established for estates at the place of residence in the provinces of Russia, separately for nobles and peasants.

7) Court and process in Russia after the judicial reform of 1864

The Governing Senate remained the highest court; departments of civil and criminal cases were formed in it, and local and general (crown) courts were created. Important innovations were the institutions of judicial investigators and the legal profession. In 1864, the notary system was introduced.

Along with the new judicial system, class courts for the clergy, military, and peasants were preserved in Russia. There was a Supreme Criminal Court, which tried cases against senior civilian officials, generals, and court aristocracy.

In Russia, during the reforms, procedural codes were adopted, and work was carried out to create a civil code. The penal system has become more liberal. The court became public, the principle of irremovability of judges and their subordination to the law was proclaimed, the principle of competition became dominant.

8) Court and process in Russia in the period before 1917

In 1881, Emperor Alexander III signed the manifesto “On the Inviolability of Autocracy” with a course of counter-reforms aimed at tightening domestic policy. Counter-reforms were carried out in several directions at once. Judicial, zemstvo, and city counter-reforms were carried out, censorship was tightened, and the rights of national minorities were limited.

Judicial counter-reform pursued two interrelated goals: to limit the transparency and democracy of the court and to strengthen administrative interference in legal proceedings. A serious blow was dealt to the institution of justices of the peace (the justice of the peace was abolished everywhere except Moscow, St. Petersburg and Odessa). Instead of magistrates' courts, zemstvo districts were established in the country's provinces.

The punitive policy of the autocracy became more stringent. The staff of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes was increased, and new gendarmerie structures, the so-called security departments, were established. A new structure was created - the secret police.

However, emergency measures did not protect the country from revolutionary upheavals. Since 1917, the tsarist and then the Provisional Government were forced to use even more stringent measures to suppress the unrest with the help of the army, and at the front the death penalty was restored, and criminal and extrajudicial prosecutions were tightened.

However, Russia was plunging into the chaos of revolution and civil war, which erased the positive experience of the formation of the country's judicial power from the previous period of its history. History of the Russian Court: a textbook. - M.: Prospekt, 2013. - P. 73..

Topic 1. Court, judicial power: genesis and evolution

The concept of court. Prerequisites for the formation of the judiciary. Basic approaches to the interpretation of the moment of emergence of the judiciary. Factors. contributing to the genesis of justice.

The origin of the judiciary in Rus'. The main stages in the history of judicial power in Russia.

Stages of development of the judiciary:

1) highlighting a special public function - resolving social conflicts;

2) the creation of special government bodies to which judicial functions are delegated;

3) formation of the judiciary - the bearer of judicial power;

4) involving the population in the administration of justice;

5) the formation of an independent branch of government - the judiciary;

6) establishment of the principle of separation of powers and institutionalization of the judiciary:

7) formation of a judicial community;

8) incorporation into national legal systems of principles and norms of international law,

9) creation of supranational judicial structures.

Topic 2. Judicial power: concept, essential characteristics

Pluralism of approaches to the definition of judicial power. Characteristics of institutional, functional, communicative and mixed approaches. The essence and characteristics of the judicial power: reality, dynamism, supremacy, the law enforcement form of manifestation of the judicial power, the normative nature of the judicial power, justice as a form of mediation of the judicial power, etc.

The place of the judiciary in public life. Main aspects of the judiciary: directive, technological, communicative.

Judges as the main element of the judicial system. Judicial bureaucracy. Judicial Corps. Judicial community.

Legal proceedings: neither clear nor significant. The relationship between the concepts of “judicial authority”, “justice”, “legal proceedings”, “court”.

Topic 3. Judicial-authority relationship: criteria for effectiveness

Signs of judicial-power relations. The concept of judicial-power relations. Composition of judicial power relations: subjects, objects, composition.

Quality of judicial activity The concept of the effectiveness of judicial activity. Criteria for effective judicial activity. Measures to improve the efficiency of the judicial system. Criteria for effective performance. Evaluating effectiveness through the relationship between the goals, objectives of justice, the activities of the courts to achieve them, and the results of these activities.

Topic 4. Judicial bodies in the Old Russian state

The origin of court in Ancient Rus'. Princely court. The role of custom in legal proceedings. Rueskaya Pravda. Charters of the Kisw princes.

Features of the judicial process in Kievan Rus. Participants in the trial. Procedural relations of the parties. Vault Persecution of the trace. Means of proof. Rumors and videos. God's judgments. Judicial unit. Written acts.

The decision and its implementation. Understanding executive production in the early period of development of the Russian state. The first sources of law containing norms of an executive nature. Norms on execution in the Treaty of Oleg with the Greeks, the Treaty of Novgorod with the Germans, the Novgorod Judgment Charter. Russian Truth.

The first reform of enforcement proceedings in Russia 1261 r. The first legislatively regulated method of executing court decisions is “ready delivery.” The appearance of the first officials specializing in the execution of court decisions on the recovery of sums of money. Tasks of the “lawmakers”. Control of the court over the process of execution under the Resolution of 1261.

Topic 5. Features of the court in Novgorod and Pskov

Pskov judicial charter: structure, sources, general characteristics. Novgorod court charter: structure, sources, general characteristics.

Structure of judicial bodies in Novgorod and Pskov Veche court, jurisdiction, order of organization and activities.

Council of gentlemen: composition, competence, order of activity.

The court of the prince and the mayor. Correlation and relationship between the powers of the prince and the mayor. Categories of cases, depending on their jurisdiction.

Prince's court: competence, order of activity.

Posadnik as a judicial officer: competence, order of activity. Tysyatsky. Rights and responsibilities.

Court lord Competence of the court. Dependence on the Novgorod eniscope. Features of the applied sources of law. Nomocanon.

Archieiisk. Election procedure. The role of the archbishop in judicial proceedings.

Brotherhood court. Order of education. Competence.

Pskov Elective Court: competence, order of proceedings.

Topic 6. Judicial power in the Moscow state

Development of law in the Moscow state. Classification of sources of judicial law.

Code of Law of 1497. Reasons for its creation. And sources. Structure and content.

Code of Law 1550. Reasons for creation. Sources. Structure and content.

Cathedral Code 1649 r. Reasons for creation. Sources. Structure and content.

Topic 7. The judicial system in the Moscow State

The Grand Duke, the Tsar as judicial bodies. Boyar Duma. Composition and competence of the Duma. Procedure for consideration of cases. Execution Chamber.

Orders The emergence of the first orders in the 16th century. Structure of orders: judges, clerks, clerks. Tables. Procedure for appointing officials. Types of orders.

Territorial court orders: rules and competence.

Estate orders: types and competence.

Court orders for certain groups of the population: your competence.

Church court. The essence of church justice. Patriarchal order: jurisdiction and jurisdiction. Patriarchal courtyard. Monastic nrpkaz

Here's the court. Reasons for existence. Competence and order of activity.

Education of the population in the administration of justice. Sotskys, elders, judges, kissers.

The emergence of instant relationships. Report. Gossip. Appeal.

Topic 8. Trial in the Moscow State

Basic forms of the process. Indictment process (“trial”). Investigative process (“search”), jurisdiction. Rules for determining jurisdiction; cost of claim; place of residence of the parties; place where the crime was committed. Withdrawal of certain categories of lela from general jurisdiction

Indictment process. Participants. Prohibition to act as a plaintiff for certain categories of persons “Petition”. “added memory” and “urgent” as procedural documents of the pre-trial stage of the process

Summons to court. Terms of summons to court “Added memory” and “call letter”: concept and difference between them. Persons ensuring attendance at the SD. Consequences of parties' failure to appear in court.

Guarantee, goals, guarantors Development of the institution of representation. Types of representation.

Forensic evidence. Obedience and its forms. “Exile from the guilty”: concept: cases of recognition of the link as unconditional. “Shared link”, “shared link” limitation. Testimony. Persons not allowed as whistleblowers Consequences of a whistleblower's failure to appear. Whole search, conditions for its use.

Courts of God. “Field”: concept and conditions of application. Kissing the cross: meaning, procedure of the act of oath. Persons allowed to kiss the cross. Lot: meaning and conditions of application.

Written acts as evidence.

The power of judicial decisions. Restoration of resolved cases. grounds; conditions of the ban on reinstatement.

Search. Parties in the search process The state as a plaintiff in the search process.

The nature of pre-trial relations in the search process. “Records”, “calling letters”, “running letters”

Search medium. Red-handed as a means of search. A general search, the evolution of its meaning as evidence. Procedure and types of general search. One's own self-importance is torture. Purposes of using whining. The increasing role of torture as a means of search. The role of the court in collecting evidence is relevant to the case. Sentence. "Indecisive verdict." eio terms and conditions. Strengthening the public principle in punishing a criminal.

Execution of court decisions. Codes of law of 1497 and 1550 on enforcement proceedings. Methods of executing court decisions according to the Code of Laws: collection from the debtor’s property, rights and giving with one’s head. The first list of property that cannot be recovered through enforcement proceedings. The principle of personal inviolability of the debtor, limiting his actions in the 15th century.

Code 1649 r. on enforcement proceedings. The order of satisfaction of penalties if several claims were to be collected from one debtor. The name of the executive officer. Stages of enforcement proceedings under the Code of 1649

The judicial system of the Russian Federation is continuously developing and changing, starting from the collapse of the USSR and ending in recent years. In the years after the collapse of the USSR, great successes were achieved: the financing of courts was significantly improved, jury trials and justice of the peace were revived, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was created, a new and quite effective system of arbitration courts was formed, subjects of the Russian Federation received the right to create their own constitutional or statutory courts, bodies were formed judicial community, judges are formally guaranteed a high level of material and social security, and modern information technologies are gradually beginning to be used in judicial activities.

But despite this, the judicial system of the Russian Federation remains imperfect; there are many unresolved or not fully resolved problems:

· It is difficult to obtain information in the field of justice. There are no necessary systems for obtaining legal information.

· Insufficient material and technical support for the court:

· Lack of premises for court buildings, imperfection of existing ones. This leads to the forced closure of court hearings, since the court physically cannot accommodate everyone.

· A large number of judges and court staff need improved housing conditions.

· Low level of execution of court decisions - in 2006, the number of court decisions executed by force only slightly exceeded half - 52%.

· Imperfection of legislation. Inconsistency of industry norms. Outdated laws. Frequent changes in legislation. Lack of complete legislative regulation of the activities of courts.

· Insufficient number of judges.

· Low security for judges, lack of guaranteed protection from pressure on them.

All of the above leads to protracted litigation, insufficient efficiency of the court, and the adoption of biased or poor-quality decisions. And even winning a lawsuit does not guarantee the restoration of violated rights. This entails the population's distrust of the judicial system and the reluctance of people to resolve cases in court.

Moreover, opinions are expressed that the court in the Russian Federation is only an appendage of the executive power and is completely subordinate to it. This position is taken by the former judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Yaroslavtsev, in his interview with the El Pais newspaper, he stated that “under Vladimir Putin and his successor as president, Dmitry Medvedev, the judiciary in Russia has become an instrument of the executive power,” “the judicial system is not an isolated element society. In Russia, civil society either does not exist or is in its infancy. Legislative bodies are paralyzed, and the key role in government is played by the vertical of power, and the center of decision-making is in the Presidential Administration." He accuses state executive authorities of “profanation of justice.” A similar point of view is shared by S.A. Pashin (Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation), T.G. Morshchakova (former judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Law) and V.I. Mironov (Doctor of Law), they believe that the courts are dependent on the presidential administration, and law enforcers use the law in ways that are contrary to the intentions of legislators, the level of legal culture of government lawyers and judges in particular is very low, the bulk of the population does not have access to qualified legal assistance, and justice itself turned into “retribution,” a standard bureaucratic activity.

Thus, there is a need to continue reforming the judicial system of the Russian Federation so that it meets international standards and can fully ensure the protection of the legitimate interests of citizens. The main document of the reform is Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 21, 2006 N583 “On the federal target program “Development of the judicial system of Russia” for 2007-2011.” The cost of the Program is 48,411.3 million rubles. It is planned to allocate in 2007 - 5989.7 million rubles, in 2008 - 8937.1 million rubles, in 2009 - 9628.9 million rubles, in 2010 - 11947.2 million rubles, in 2011 - 11908.4 million rubles. The primary objective of this program is to improve the quality of justice, the level of judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations. To achieve it, within the framework of the program it is expected to solve the following problems:

· Ensuring openness and transparency of justice.

· Increasing confidence in justice, including by increasing the efficiency and quality of case consideration.

· Creating the necessary conditions for the implementation of justice, ensuring its accessibility.

· Ensuring the independence of judges.

· Increasing the level of execution of court decisions.

At the VII All-Russian Congress of Judges, the priority areas of the judicial reform program were identified: improving the quality of functioning of the judicial system, strengthening its independence, ensuring reasonable time frames for consideration of cases in courts, humanizing justice, unconditional execution of court decisions, improving the training and retraining of judges and candidates for judges, creating systems of compensation to citizens and legal entities for harm caused by violation of the right to legal proceedings and execution of court decisions within a reasonable time.

In the report of the Chairman of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, Sidorenko Yu.I. proposals are being put forward to improve the legislative framework, improve legislative regulation of the activities of courts, and introduce computer technologies (creation of an “electronic justice” system). They talk about the need to create juvenile courts and the importance of developing alternative methods of resolving disputes, which would reduce the burden on judges and thereby speed up legal proceedings.

During the meeting-seminar of the chairmen of the councils of judges of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, held on June 9-10, 2008, the issues of increasing wages for employees of the courts and the Judicial Department system, legislative consolidation of issues of psychological support for judicial activities, development of scientifically based workload standards for judges and employees were discussed. court apparatus, reducing the terms of appointment of judges of federal courts, informatization of courts, organizing medical care and sanatorium-resort treatment for judges and members of their families, exercising financial control over the use of federal budget funds allocated to finance the courts of the Russian Federation.

In the Message of President D.A. Medvedev dated November 5, 2008, talks about reducing the time for consideration of civil cases, the possibility of transferring issues of the activities of justices of the peace to the federal level, and the introduction of the law “On ensuring access to information about the activities of courts in the Russian Federation” (will come into force on July 1, 2010) . The issue of humanizing justice is raised: decisions on arrests and punishments associated with isolation from society should be made more carefully.

The Presidential Address of 2009 raises the issue of improving criminal legislation, for example, it is proposed to use administrative prejudice more often and expand the categories of cases for which the punishment will be fines or forced labor.

During the implementation of judicial reform, it is envisaged to review the jurisdiction of cases by district and magistrate judges, to abolish and strengthen a number of district courts in order to evenly distribute the load between the courts. A system of out-of-court methods of resolving cases is being developed. In order to ensure the independence of the court, it is necessary to consolidate procedures to prevent pressure on judges (the three-year probationary period for judges has been abolished, all informal appeals to judges must be made public, it is intended to limit the influence on judges from court chairmen). In order to ensure transparency of the judicial system, overcome conflicts of interest and eliminate the personal interest of the judge in the outcome of the case, a ban should be established on the participation in the consideration of cases of a lawyer - the spouse, relative or in-law of the judge. Courts should have greater influence on legislative activity. Electronic systems are being introduced into the activities of courts (systems that allow automating the process of passing a case in court at all stages; reference systems; the Bank of Arbitration Court Decisions has been created at the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, in which you can get access to all cases of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation; systems for remote electronic interaction with the parties in court hearings; a system that allows filing documents electronically; telecommunication infrastructure to ensure effective interaction between arbitration courts, courts of general jurisdiction and the system of the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation). From 2012, it is planned to add appellate courts to the system of courts of general jurisdiction. To relieve judges and ensure a more efficient and impartial consideration of court cases, it is planned to create special structural units for receiving applications and appeals from citizens, staffed by professionally trained lawyers. In order to ensure the transparency of the judicial system and prevent its corruption, an annual declaration of income, property, and property-related obligations will soon be introduced by judges, as well as their spouses. A disciplinary judicial presence has been created to hear cases against judges. As part of the reform, measures are being taken to improve the material support of judges and to improve and improve court premises. Work is underway aimed at ensuring the execution of court decisions - measures are being taken to improve the conditions for the placement and work of divisions of the Federal Bailiff Service, and it is planned to introduce a unified information system covering the entire system of the Federal Bailiff Service and ensuring its interaction with the judicial authorities. It is expected that the time frame for considering civil cases in courts will be reduced. As part of the program to support judicial reform, work is underway to create special “electronic suitcases”, which are mobile electronic systems for considering cases outside the courtroom. In addition, the European Union has allocated three million euros, which will be spent on combating judicial red tape and increasing the level of execution of court decisions in Russia; for this purpose, European experts have begun to work in three regions of the country.

This is not a complete list of all activities aimed at improving the judicial system in the Russian Federation; various proposals are constantly being discussed, new bills are being considered, and changes are being made to old laws. During the reform, the Russian judicial system came closer to European standards. Legal proceedings have become more objective, the court has become more independent, and modern technologies are widely used. But it is too early to draw conclusions - the judicial reform is far from complete, many innovative proposals remain unrealized or not fully implemented, and those already implemented have not yet been tested in practice. Thus, it is not yet possible to objectively assess the results of the work currently being carried out. The only thing that can be said for sure is that in 2011 the reform and development of the judicial system will not be stopped and another program awaits us for the development of the judicial system in Russia.

The creation of an effective state mechanism capable of ensuring the safe existence of society, protecting human rights and freedoms and giving people the opportunity to exercise their rights is one of the priority tasks of the Russian legal system.

To understand this system, it is necessary to study its structural elements. One of these elements, which occupies a large place in the state mechanism for ensuring public safety, is law enforcement agencies. The rule of law, which our country is today, is unthinkable without a developed institution for the protection and protection of the rights of its citizens. The judicial system is an integral and most important part of it, and therefore it is it that should be given the greatest attention. Thus, in this course work I tried to consider the history of the development of the Russian judicial system, reveal the content of the modern judicial system of the Russian Federation, and then determine the directions of development of the judicial system.

When writing this course work, I pursued the following goals:

1. Trace the history of the development of the Russian judicial system starting from the Kyiv period and ending with the USSR.

2. Describe the judicial system of the Russian Federation.

3. Consider activities for the development of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, identify the main directions of judicial reform in Russia.

The structure of my work consists of two main chapters: the history of the development of the judicial system in Russia and the general characteristics of the judicial system of the Russian Federation.

The first chapter is a brief excursion into the history of the Russian state and law, a science, although not directly, but related to the discipline “law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.” Since the modern judicial system of the Russian Federation is only the next stage in the development of the domestic state and law, it is necessary to consider the previous stages of this development. I described not only the types of judicial bodies themselves in different historical periods, but also tried to reveal the basic principles of legal proceedings and judicial structure, otherwise the information about judicial systems would be incomplete, and the essence of the chapter would not be revealed. The focus is on the judicial system "de jure", without a detailed consideration of the political, economic and social factors that certainly influence the judicial system of the country. This is due to the fact that the volume and general topic of the work do not allow us to allocate enough space for such a broad topic.

The second chapter is devoted directly to the judicial system of the Russian Federation. It gives a brief description of all links and instances of the judicial system of the Russian Federation and examines the main areas of activity of certain judicial bodies. Moreover, each court is considered only in general terms, without a detailed description of the internal structure of the courts and the legal acts regulating their activities.

To understand the content of the second chapter of this course work, it is necessary to reveal the concepts of the judicial system and the judicial authority.

A link in the judicial system is a set of courts that have equal competence and occupy the same position in the judicial system.

A judicial authority is a court or its division that deals with a case in a certain order. There are courts of first, appellate, cassation and supervisory instances. The courts of first instance consider the case on its merits. Appellate courts check the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts that have not entered into force, making new decisions or upholding old ones. Cassation courts also check the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts that have not entered into force, but they examine evidence in limited cases by law and do not have the right to make new decisions on cases, but can only send the case for a new trial, canceling the old decision or leaving the old one in force decision.. Supervisory courts check the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts that have entered into force. Such courts can either overturn the verdict and send it back for retrial to a lower court, or make a new decision on the case. In this case, one court, as a rule, has the functions of several instances at once.

The third chapter talks about the development of the judicial system of the Russian Federation. It identifies the main problems of the modern judicial system and activities to solve them. Information for this chapter was taken both from specific regulations and from newspaper articles, from interviews and appeals from officials.

1. History of the development of the judicial system in Russia

1.1 Courts of the Kyiv period

The judicial system of Ancient Rus' was almost no different from the judicial systems of other ancient states. The court was also not separated from the administration - in every city, princes were at the head of power, and they became the sources of justice and reprisals. Naturally, the prince was physically unable to resolve all disputes personally, so he appointed assistants - tiuns and posadniks. The sentence was passed on the basis of customs that had developed in the tribal system of the Slavs. Russian Truth, for example, was a collection of customary law. The principle of talion was widespread. Legal proceedings were almost always conducted orally. It was theoretically possible to appeal the decisions of the tiuns and mayors, but in practice the princes did not always accept such complaints, and the path to the prince’s residence could be so long and dangerous that it was easier to accept an unfair verdict. At the same time, the principles of equality of arms and adversarial legal process were ubiquitous

The trial, which was carried out by the prince himself and his posadniks and tiuns, was purely formal. The judge never went into a deep analysis of the evidence presented. If they were provided, then they should have been believed. A bruised man who came to the prince could accuse anyone of beating him, and the accused had to provide witnesses who would confirm that it was the beaten man who started the fight. If there were no witnesses, then the accused was found guilty.

In the absence of evidence from the litigants, the issue was resolved by a judicial duel - a “field” or an “ordeal” - a divine trial. The winner was considered supported by the gods (later God), and therefore right. The judicial oath was widespread. During paganism, they swore by Perun, laying down their shield and weapons. After the establishment of Christianity, the oath consisted of kissing the cross and the Gospel while pronouncing words invoking the name of God as a witness to the truth.

The court in Ancient Rus' was passive. No trial was initiated at his will. Even in the case of murder, a complaint was required from the plaintiffs - the relatives of the murdered person. If the body was unidentified or only human bones were found near the village, then no trial followed. The victim himself had to begin the investigation, collect witnesses, evidence and bring the defendant to trial. The owner of the escaped slave himself was looking for him, and the mayor had only to provide him with assistance when he asked for it, when capturing the identified slave. Due to the lack of government assistance, many private individuals have emerged to help people in litigation for a fee.

After the verdict was passed, the court often left it to the victim to restore his right: to receive money, to take the debtor home as a slave and sell him, to cause physical harm to the criminal, etc.

An important stage in the development of the Russian judicial system was the emergence of church courts after the adoption of Christianity. The jurisdiction of such courts included many crimes: polygamy, unauthorized divorce, non-compliance with church rules, return to paganism, bride kidnapping, rape, fornication, incest, arson, bestiality, crimes within the family. This was partly due to the fact that secular courts were guided by the norms of outdated customary law, which did not cover all spheres of public life; not all acts opposed by the church were considered crimes by common law.

In church courts, the influence of Roman law was significant, since the first metropolitans and bishops were proteges of Byzantium, a former part of the Roman Empire. The basis of church legal proceedings was an amalgam of Slavic customs, Roman law and church canons. Judicial functions in such courts were carried out by bishops, and the council of bishops headed by the metropolitan was the appellate instance and court for the affairs of the bishops themselves.

1.2 Courts of the Moscow State period

Since during the specific period crimes were considered primarily as causing material or physical harm to a person, punishment was imposed only to compensate for the damage. The courts fed themselves by collecting certain amounts from fines in their favor. It is not surprising that in this situation the judges were financially interested in conducting as many cases as possible, deliberately delaying them in order to make a profit. And in conditions of feudal fragmentation and the absence of any kind of centralized power, the arbitrariness of judges was not at all limited.

But after a period of feudal fragmentation in Rus', a gradual process of centralization began. More and more lands were slowly but surely included in the Moscow Principality. To manage and preserve such vast territories, it was necessary to create a unified apparatus of power and administration, including a unified judicial system. The old appanage orders were no longer acceptable due to the change in the nature of power and the increase in crime. The crime began to be viewed not only as causing material damage to the victim, but also as a violation of the laws of the state, an act against the will of the state, which must be stopped in the future. Consequently, the punishment also changed. Now his goal was not compensation for damage, but retribution to the criminal and intimidation of other people. Punishments became much more cruel, many corporal punishments were introduced, the death penalty became widespread, according to the codes of law of 1497 and 1550 it was prescribed for murder, horse theft, major thefts, state crimes and much more (a total of 10 types of crimes were punishable by deprivation of life). The adversarial process is gradually losing ground, and a new type of legal proceedings is beginning to be used - inquisitorial. It is characterized by depriving the accused of all rights (including the right to defend himself) and combining the functions of judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer in one person. The initiation of a case was formalized by a “sign letter,” which gave the right to detain the accused and bring him to court, or a “letter of notice” (an order to local authorities to find and seize the accused). The court itself was involved in collecting evidence, the trial turned into an interrogation and confrontation, and torture was actively used to extract confessions. Legal proceedings could begin immediately after the discovery of the fact of the crime, and not only after the statement of the plaintiff.