On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approaches Part 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibility Of heads of courts (section 1)2

Cover Page

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

In the first part of this article (“Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?”) the modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court’s staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Mikhail I. Kleandrov

Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: mklean@bk.ru

Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Law, Professor, Chief Researcher, Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Russian Federation, 10 Znamenka str., 119019 Moscow

References

  1. Kleandrov M. I. On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: law enforcement practice, general approaches. Part 1. Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary responsibility? // State and Law. 2024. No. 3 (in Russ.).
  2. Tumanova L. V. Ensuring the authority of the judiciary and protecting the rights and legitimate interests of judges as a two-pronged task by the Higher Qualification Board of Judges of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Supreme Judicial Council of the Russian Federation. 2022. No. 6 (86). P. 10 (in Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies