On some peculiarities of the exercise of powers of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The article investigates the ambiguous attitude of researchers to the legislative activity of the highest judicial body of Russia - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The author believes that it is necessary to clearly define the limits of powers of Russian judicial bodies, which implies not just a broad interpretation of the law or filling gaps in the law, but even the introduction of provisions that are contrary to the applicable law. The author makes an attempt to analyse the submitted draft law aimed at significant changing the current criminal legal proceeding and substantiates the necessity to introduce the restorative approach in the administration of justice in criminal cases. It is often the case when the highest judicial authority abuses the right and relies on the broad interpretation of the law to prepare recommendations for law enforcers. Since the Soviet era the researchers have been pointing to the need for restricted right of the highest courts to use the broad interpretation of the criminal procedure law; however, nowadays, the Supreme Court often goes beyond the limits of its competence and, instead of interpreting, creates the law, which is totally unacceptable. It got a negative assessment by the domestic researchers of the procedure, who, among other things, pointed out that the Supreme Court Plenum can give an explanation of the provisions enshrined in the Code, but cannot fill the gaps in it (though practicing lawyers sometimes expect it), as this is beyond the scope of its powers and refers to the competence of the legislature. Unfortunately, it did not have a proper impact on the current practice of filling the gaps. We can increasingly observe not only cases of a broad interpretation of the law or filling gaps in the law, but even the introduction of provisions contrary to the applicable law. Another argument against the preservation and dissemination of this practice is an unstable position of the Plenum of the Supreme Court. This is aggravated by the variability of the normative regulation in the domestic judicial procedures. Thus, over fifteen years of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2001, it has been amended 190 times through federal laws (as of March 1, 2016).

Keywords

Authors

References