Topic 1. Court, judiciary: genesis and evolution

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

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

Stages of development of the judiciary:

1) highlighting a special public function - the resolution of social conflicts;

2) the creation of special authorities to which the judicial function is delegated;

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

4) involvement of the population in the administration of justice;

5) formation of an independent branch of power - sudebpoy;

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

7) formation of the judicial community;

8) incorporation into national legal systems of the 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 the judiciary Characteristics of the institutional, functional, communicative and mixed approaches. The essence and features of the judiciary: reality, dynamism, supremacy, law enforcement form of manifestation of the judiciary, normative assignment of the judiciary, justice as a form of mediation of the judiciary, etc.

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

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

Judicial proceedings: noneatne and essential. Correlation between the concept of "judicial power", "justice", "judicial proceedings", "court".

Topic 3. Judicial-power relationship: performance criteria

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

The 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 of effective activity. Evaluation of effectiveness through the ratio of goals, tasks of justice, the activities of the courts to achieve them, the results of this activity.

Topic 4. Judiciary in the Old Russian state

The origin of the court in ancient Russia. Prince's Court. The role of custom in legal proceedings. Rue Truth. Statutes of the princes of Kisv.

Features of the trial in Kievan Rus. participants in the trial. procedural relations of the parties. Vault Persecution of the trace. Means of proof. Rumors and sights. Judgments of God. Judicial noon. Written acts.

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

The first reform of enforcement proceedings in Russia 1261 r. The first legally regulated way of executing court decisions is “giving back ready”. Emergence of the first officials specializing in the execution of judgments on the recovery of sums of money

Topic 5. Features of the court in Novgorod and Pskov

Pskov Judicial Letter: Structure, Sources, General Characteristics. Novgorod judicial charter: structure, sources, general characteristics.

The structure of the judiciary in Novgorod and Pskov

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

The court of the prince and the posadnik. Correlation and interconnection of the powers of the prince and the posadnik. Categories of cases, from position to their jurisdiction.

Court of the prince: competence, order of activity.

Posadnik as a judicial authority: competence, procedure of activity. Tysyatsky. Rights and obligations.

Court Vladychna Competence of the Court. Dependence on the Novgorod eniskop. Features of the applied sources of law. Nomocanon.

Archiiisk. Election order. The role of the archbishop in judicial proceedings.

Brother's Court. The order of education. Competence.

Court of elected Pskov: competence, order of production.

Topic 6. Judicial power in the Moscow State

The development of law in the Moscow state. Classification of sources of judicial law.

Sudebnik 1497. Reasons for its creation. Ietochniki. Structure and content.

Sudebnik 1550 Reasons for creation. Sources. Structure and content.

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

Topic 7. The system of judicial bodies in the Moscow State

The Grand Duke, the king as the judiciary. Boyar Duma. Composition and competence of the Duma. The order of consideration of cases. Straightening Chamber.

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

Territorial court orders: vndy and competence.

Class orders: types and competence.

Court orders for certain groups of the population: vіshy n competence.

Church Court. The essence of ecclesiastical justice. Patriarchal order: jurisdiction and jurisdiction. Patriarch's Court. Monastic nrpkaz

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

The teaching of the population in the administration of justice. Sotsky, elders, judges, kissers.

The origin of instance relations. Report. Gossip. Appeal.

Topic 8. Litigation in the Moscow State

The main forms of the process. The accusatory process ("trial"). Investigative process ("search"), Jurisdiction. Rules for determining the jurisdiction price of the claim; place of residence of the parties; the scene of the crime. Withdrawal of certain categories of lel nz general jurisdiction

accusatory process. Members. The prohibition to act as a plaintiff for certain categories of persons "petition". "attached memory" and "urgent" as procedural documents of the pre-trial stage of the process

Summons to court. The terms of the summons to the court "Additional memory" and "letter of call": the concept and difference between them. Persons providing appearance in the district. Consequences of non-appearance of the parties in court.

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

Forensic evidence. Obedience and its forms. "Link from the guilty": concept: cases of recognition of a seed as unconditional. "Shared link", "shared link" constraint. Witness's testimonies. Persons not allowed as witnesses Consequences of witnesses' failure to appear. General search, the conditions for its application.

Courts of God. "Field": concept and conditions of application. Cross kissing: meaning, procedure of the act of oath. Persons allowed to kiss the cross. Lot: meaning and conditions of application.

Pіііsmsіshys acts as evidence.

The power of judgments. Restoration of resolved cases. grounds; terms of the ban on restoration.

Wanted. 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", "invitation letters", "running letters"

Search medium. Police as a means of search. General search, the evolution of its meaning as evidence. Procedure and types of general search. Own riziiaiis n torture. Purposes of whining. The growing role of torture as a means of search. The role of the court in collecting evidence in a case. Sentence. "Indecisive Judgment". conditions eio issuance. Strengthening the public principle in punishing the offender.

Execution of judgments. Sudebniks of 1497 and 1550 on enforcement proceedings. Methods of execution of court decisions on the Code of Laws: recovery from the debtor's property, rights and return of the head The first list of property that cannot be levied in the order of enforcement proceedings. The principle of inviolability of the debtor's personalities, limiting his actions in the XVlI century.

Code of 1649 r. on enforcement proceedings. The next order of satisfaction of penalties, if several claims were to be recovered from one debtor. Enforcement of the Executive Nrocees. Stages of enforcement proceedings according to the Code of 1649

The courts are an institution of the modern state, ensuring the resolution of economic, civil, administrative, criminal and other disputes in accordance with the accepted rules of law. To the extent that the judiciary creates a predictable and fair legal environment, ensures reliable protection of the rights of citizens and their associations, including property rights, it contributes to economic growth. The need to resume economic growth in Russia and ensure long-term stability puts on the agenda the issue of improving the judicial system and increasing the authority of the judiciary.

The judicial system of the Russian Federation has been developing for more than one century, starting with the reforms of Alexander II, it continues to develop to this day.

It was the reform of Alexander II that became the basis for the modern judicial system. It should be noted that the courts in Russia existed even before this reform, but they were either non-permanent or did not have a solid legal framework. Based on this, four historical stages in the formation of the judicial system in Russia can be distinguished.

Stage 1 - before the reform of Alexander II. Back in 1649, the Zemsky Sobor adopted the Council Code, which consisted of several parts, highlighting material provisions, i.e. norms on offenses and crimes, as well as procedural ones, which are the norms on the legal proceedings itself. In addition, this document noted the division of the population into separate categories unequal in rights. The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is also prominently highlighted.

In the reign of Peter, new judicial bodies appear, previously unfamiliar in Russia - the Senate and the Justice College. The powers between them were distributed in such a way that the College of Justice was the governing body of all courts, and the Senate dealt with the resolution of complex cases.

A little later, also under Peter I, a decree was issued on November 5, 1723 “On the form of the court”, which gave the courts an adversarial form of the process, which was not the case since the introduction of the Cathedral Code.

Stage 2 - reforms of Alexander II and Alexander III. From the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, significant changes began in the judicial system. It was during this period that judicial statutes were adopted (“Establishment of Judicial Institutions”, “Charter on Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace”, “Charter of Criminal Proceedings” and “Charter of Civil Proceedings”), which introduced institutions common to all classes.

At the same time, the courts were divided into three categories: the magistrate's court, the district court and the judicial chamber. However, at the direction of the emperor, if the case, in his opinion, was of an important political nature, then it was considered by the Supreme Criminal Court.

During the judicial reform period of the 19th century in criminal proceedings, the assessment of evidence was provided not only to the official, but also to the representatives of the people. At the beginning of the 20th century, during the Soviet period of statehood, the jury was abolished. Re-established by judicial, legal and constitutional reform in the Russian Federation in 1993.

In the period from 1864 to 1917, jurors took place in the criminal process of Russia, they were characterized by both historical and systemic evolution, as well as significant variability in state-territorial distribution.

The jury trial in Russia arose along with the judicial reform of 1864, which represents an evolution from the feudal position of the judicial and procedural system of serf Russia to modern bourgeois institutions of law.

At that time, a new court system was established: a court with elected judges, justices of the peace and congresses of justices of the peace, courts with appointed judges, district courts and chambers of justice. Each county with the city included in it, as well as even a large city separately, constituted a world district, divided into several sections. In each of the districts there was a district, magistrate and honorary judge.

The role of world justice was great, because it came to replace one of the most common courts in Russia during the serf times - the landowner's court.

The reform of 1864 introduces the newest system of general courts. Courts of first instance - district courts, which were created for two or more counties and included the chairman and members of the court. One of the new institutions that were introduced by the reform at the level of the first stage of the general judicial system were jurors.

As stated in Article 45 of the Charter of Criminal Proceedings, a juror is a person who has reached the age of 25, and not older than 70 years, who has the residence qualification. The election of jurors took place as follows: a list was created, including honorary magistrates, elected officials, judges from peasants and other persons with income or property. These lists categorically could not include the military, servants, hired workers, priests, teachers, as well as people who were not literate. These lists were the basis for compiling regular and reserve lists for the year. Before the court session, a month before, the chairman of the court chose 30 main jurors and 6 spare ones by lot. The meeting was attended by 12 jurors. The jury could also be challenged by both the defendant and the prosecutor. From among those assessors who were not assigned, twelve jurors were elected, of whom one was senior.

Stage 3 - the judicial system of the times of the USSR. Important for the formation of the judicial system of the Russian Federation is the period of Soviet power, when since 1917 the work of justices of the peace, investigators, prosecutors and lawyers was suspended for a year. Further, with the creation of the Constitution of the USSR of 1936, the pre-existing judicial system underwent significant changes, but the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 is of greater importance for the judicial system.

Stage 4 - the judicial system of modern Russia.

In the 1990s, the need for judicial reform arose in Russia. The concept of judicial reform in 1991 determined the construction of a rule of law state, as well as the establishment of an independent judiciary, as the basis of the task.

The main directions of judicial reform were also consolidated and developed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. The Constitution of the Russian Federation guaranteed judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the equality of all before the court and the law was fixed, the independence of judges was determined, as well as the equality and competitiveness of the parties.

The beginning of modern Russia comes with the adoption of the Constitution by the newly formed state in 1993. A new model of legal proceedings appeared, which provided guarantees for the activities of judges, determined the status of the Constitutional, Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts of the Russian Federation, secured the right of any citizen to judicial protection. An important step was the creation of the federal target program "Development of the Judicial System of Russia" for 2002-2006. This program had the task of informatization of the courts of general jurisdiction, and based on the results of its work, the Council of Judges decided the task was completed, so the State Automated System "Justice" was introduced in the courts of the Russian Federation.

This was followed by the federal program "Development of the Judicial System of Russia" for 2007-2013, which was a guarantee of openness and transparency of justice in the country, an increase in citizens' confidence in the system, ensuring the independence of judges, as well as increasing the level of enforcement of judicial acts. As part of this program, in 2010 the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation launched the latest information resource - a file of arbitration cases, and some time later the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court began to broadcast its sessions. So, any citizen can monitor the progress of a particular case and consider some of the documents attached to it.

At the moment, the Russian Federation has adopted the federal target program "Development of the Russian Judicial System" for 2014-2020, which provides for a huge number of changes.

In modern Russia, one of the problems of the instance system of criminal and civil proceedings for a long time was the parallel existence of two instances for the revision of judicial acts that have not entered into legal force - cassation and appeal. In accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the appeal was applicable to the acts of justices of the peace, and the remaining acts that did not have time to enter into force were appealed in cassation. Such a provision did not correspond to the constitutional principle of the equality of all before the law and the courts; instances duplicated each other. The cassation performed functions that were not characteristic of it, which also did not correspond to world standards.

Thus, we can conclude that the history of the development of the judicial system in our country goes back centuries and is intended to resolve disputes. The judiciary in Russia is constantly changing and improving. With its development, specialized bodies and officials of justice appeared, who were called upon to resolve people's disputes. With the development and complication of these bodies, a modern judicial system has gradually developed.

Bibliography:

1. Boshno S.V. Theory of law and state. Textbook. Ser. Russian legal education (2nd ed., revised and additional). M., 2011.
2. Gravina A.A. Organization and activities of courts of general jurisdiction: novels and perspectives: Monograph / A.A. Gravina, V.P. Kashepov, O.V. Makarova [and others]; resp. ed. V.P. Kashepov. - M., 2016. - SPS "ConsultantPlus".
3. Komkova G.N. The system of protection of human rights in the Russian Federation. Textbook. M.: Prospekt Publishing House, 2017.
4. Mikhailova N.S. Directions for the development of the institute of justices of the peace // Young scientist. - 2016. - No. 4. - S. 578-580. ; The same [Electronic resource]. – URL: http://moluch.ru/archive/108/26019/ (29.07.2016).
5. Fundamental and applied research in the modern world. 2015. No. 9-4. pp. 136-138
6. Yakovlev V.F. Experience in creating arbitration courts // Bulletin of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation. 2012. No. 1. S. 6–25.

We know from philosophy and sociology that society develops in a spiral. It is obvious that public institutions are undergoing the same changes, leaving their imprint on the matter of law. Therefore, turning to the study of monuments of law is not only following the scientific tradition of knowing the true nature of things, but also a way to clearly demonstrate the progressive repetitive variability of the domestic judicial system, its patterns and reasons moving in a spiral. Knowledge of cyclic development and identification of factors that influence the movement in a spiral will allow predicting the dynamic development of the domestic judicial system and taking adequate and timely measures aimed at balancing the system.

The court, as an authority, has the exclusive competence to consider and resolve legal disputes (cases), and the judicial system, which has a complex hierarchy, provides the justice of a judicial act with an internal legal mechanism for reviewing and verifying the justice of judicial acts. Paying attention to the right to administer justice and the legal mechanism for correcting judicial errors, let us follow the hierarchy of the judiciary: the power to finalize the case and the provision of justice tasks as a manifestation of (state) power.

However, a study of the administration of justice by state authorities without an analysis of the legal nature of the emergence of such powers and the procedure for their implementation would not allow us to fully comprehend the truth of legal phenomena and draw correct conclusions. Therefore, let us turn our attention to the origins of justice.

In this regard, the national assembly can be considered the starting point for the evolution of the national judicial system. It was the only body that resolved disputes in society on the basis of customs and moral standards. As Y. Gauthier noted, “law in the eyes of a man of antiquity was at the same time the highest truth, justice”, therefore “every time he appealed to law, he at the same time appealed to the gods and to the living conscience of “good men” and "elders" guarding and broadcasting in the face of the people the sacred "truth" of time immemorial". As a rule, the decisions made at the veche personified the unanimity of the members of society with the result of resolving the dispute and were not subject to revision, since this would be in conflict with mores and religion. As B.I. Syromyatnikov, the word "court" was then identical to the word "truth".

However, due to the social stratification and settlement of the population across the territory, law was separated from the norms of morality and religion, formalizing into separate institutions, and the consideration of disputes by the general gathering of the people already seemed difficult. Therefore, to resolve current cases, the first judicial bodies are formed, and the right to consider issues that concern everyone is reserved forever. There is a tendency to delegate the authority to administer justice to the prince. But the personal administration of justice by him, due to his employment and the vastness of his possessions, was difficult, therefore the prince transfers his right to other persons (posadniks, tuins, governors). Therefore, along with the court of the prince, the court of the owner acted - governors (boyars) and volosters. Since they were kept (fed) by the population in the territory entrusted to them and by the prince at the expense of his military trophies, in order for the case to be considered by the court, the complainant had to bring the judge along with the petition. With entrusting the prince and his attorneys with the administration of justice, the court became a source of constant income for them, so the judges were interested in considering any dispute by them. The decision on the dispute was final and not subject to challenge.

The growing influence of the boyars on the ground led to the emergence of two centers of power in each principality.

During the invasion of the Golden Horde, the right to collect taxes from the population of the principality was delegated to the prince. The political and military support (label) of the prince from the Mongols secured him the title of Great. As the Golden Horde lost influence on the specific principalities, the latter acquired relative independence, and the princes sought to retain power and judicial powers, bringing a constant income to their treasury. Since the court of the prince extended only to his lands, there was a tendency to centralize power through homage and the purchase of destinies. At the same time, on the lands of the patrimony, boyars and churches, their owners carried out the court, which was reflected in judicial letters. As B.I. Syromyatnikov, during this historical period, the court "became a predicate of landed property" . The spread of the prince's power over the lands was supported by charters establishing, among other things, his judicial powers. So, in 1397, in the charter of Dvina, Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, in an effort to limit the arbitrariness and theft of governors-boyars, established a rule for the population to appeal to him with complaints about judges. The letter obliged the prince to consider such a petition in a timely manner. At the same time, a sanction was introduced for judges who evaded the examination of complaints. Similar provisions were reproduced in the Belozersky Charter (Articles 20 and 23). The letters elevated the prince's court over other courts and outlined a trend towards an instance procedure for considering a case. Disputes were already considered in two instances: the governors and volosts acted as the court of first instance, and the prince was the court of second and last instance (with the exception of disputes of "merchant people", which were resolved only by the prince's court as a court of first and only instance). However, the consideration of the case in two instances was not on a permanent basis, but was an exception to the general rule. The reason for the transfer of the case was also the appeals of the disputing parties, as well as judges in cases where it was impossible to resolve the case due to contradictions in the law or the presence of gaps in the law. As pointed out by L.V. Cherspin, the institute of "report" in the Russian state of the XV-XVI centuries. was "a kind of supervision over the implementation of the correctness of the administration of justice, concentrated in the hands of the Grand Dukes or persons authorized by them" . The tandem of the governor and the prince remained until the formation of the Moscow principality.

The creation of a centralized state (judicial) apparatus was the revision by Ivan III of the court letters of Novgorod, Pskov and other specific principalities. The publication of the Sudebnik in 1497 by “Prince the Great Ivan Vasilievich of All Russia” testifies to the loss of independence of the judicial institutions of specific lands and the rise of the Moscow prince as the highest judicial authority in Russia, as well as the loss of the Veche of the right to consider cases. Therefore, this moment can be considered the emergence of a state court, since the administration of justice finally passes to the overlords, and the last word in resolving the dispute is to the sovereign, the legal regulation of the consideration of cases is already considered a sphere of public interest to ensure the stability of power. The combination of administrative, judicial and legislative functions in one body of power, the centralization and bureaucratization of state power created the prerequisites for strengthening power relations as the basis for managing public affairs, including judicial ones. With the unification of the specific principalities under the command of the Moscow prince, there was a significant enlargement of the state and, as a result, the complication of the judicial system, which already consisted of three links: the governor as the court of first instance, the writ court, the boyar duma or the prince's court as the highest judicial instance. The Sudebnik sanctioned the revision of cases by the prince as the highest judicial authority, worked out by that time. At the same time, the highest court considered the complaint on the merits, being, in fact, a court of appeal. "For the first time, a provision was established providing for the basis for sending the case to the highest judicial instance: if" the complainant is unsuitable to rule ", that is, if it becomes necessary to eliminate ambiguity or to fill the incompleteness of the law. Both the judges themselves were allowed to "tell the Grand Duke" and the parties to the case "or send him to that". one ruble were not subject to revision, which indicates the desire, firstly, to prevent the revision of land ownership and, accordingly, the redistribution of power, and secondly, to reduce the number of appeals to the prince.The prince acted as the highest court, but together thus he was the head of the legislature, filled in the gaps in the law revealed in the process, and gave an authentic interpretation of the law on, shaping the jurisprudence. To accept petitions to the sovereign, a petition order was established.

In the Sudebnik of 1550, the rules for addressing the prince in court cases are reproduced, which are supplemented by an indication of the observance of the sequence of appeals to the courts. For the first time, a sanction was introduced in the form of imprisonment for the complainant, if he applied on the merits of the dispute or filed unmotivated complaints: “it’s not on the case and the boyars will refuse him, and that complainant will be beaten with his forehead, lokuchi the sovereign”, then “throw in prison”, which testifies to the hardships of the prince himself to delve into the essence of the matter and consider litigation.

The final formation of the instance order for the consideration of cases was completed in the 16th century with the adoption by the Zemsky Sobor of the Code, in which all previously published judicial documents, decree books of orders, royal decrees and Duma sentences, and decisions of the Zemsky Sobors were codified. The differentiation of society contributed to the creation of specialized courts for each class of "servicemen", "arable", "merchant people" and "sovereign pilgrims", which, in turn, led to the formation of the institution of jurisdiction and jurisdiction. The procedure for reviewing court decisions is detailed. The Code fixed the condition for the admissibility of a complaint against a court decision, according to which a petition for reconsideration of a case is submitted directly to the court that issued it, “in what order it is known”, “and without beating your forehead in the order, do not submit a petition to the sovereign about any cases” . Only if it was impossible to resolve the case in the order, it was sent to the report to the sovereign or persons authorized by him "and to his sovereign boyars and devious and duma people." Thus, a procedure was established for successively appealing against a court decision, which provides for a ban on the direct appeal of the population with complaints about court decisions to the head of state, bypassing ordinary judicial instances. The review of cases was carried out collegially in case of an unjust decision or in case of gaps or contradictions in the right “do not be powerful, and in that case give the court 3 heads”. At the same time, the consideration of the case was carried out again within the limits of the initial requirements and grounds for the claim, the new arguments were ignored by the court. Complaints were reported directly to the sovereign only in case of difficulties in resolving the case by a lower court or its denial of justice, or in case of unfairness of the decision. The court of the boyars is evolving into a judicial board. There is a tendency for the sovereign to delegate part of his powers to administer justice.

By a decree of February 22, 1711, Peter I establishes the Governing Senate as an emergency body "for managing" state affairs in the event of "Our absences." Later, its competence is specified, which includes judicial and organizational and judicial activities, financial and tax control, foreign trade and credit powers. With the establishment of the Governing Senate, the number of judicial instances increased from three to four: landrichters, court courts, the Senate represented by the collegium and the general assembly, the monarch as the highest authority; and for "trading people" - up to three judicial instances. Uniform rules of legal proceedings are being introduced, legislation is being codified. The procedure for the revision of cases after the appeal hearing is established, in case of disagreement of the party in the case with the decision made by the court. The verification of the justice of judicial acts was carried out within the limits of the arguments of the complaints. The emperor acted as a judge only in political cases and as a court of appeal in relation to the decisions of the Senate. The Decree of April 27, 1722 “On the Position of the Senate” established the procedure for filing appeals, according to which complaints “for a wrong court” were submitted to the requetmaster or to the collegium of the Senate, whose competence includes a specific dispute. For each case, the chancellery compiled a brief extract, according to which the case was reported to the sovereign, and in case of his absence, to the Senate. During the revision of the case, each senator could express his opinion, which was recorded by the secretary in the minutes of the meeting and signed by them. In cases of complexity of the case or urgency, it was allowed to consider one case up to three hours. The decision was put to a vote. With the establishment of the Prosecutor's Office in 1722, the circle of persons entitled to appeal court decisions, including the Senate, expanded.

Subsequently, the creation of the Supreme Privy Council in 1726 increased the number of courts to five and four respectively. The procedure for sending complaints against judicial acts, which were sent directly to the Senate, has changed. In a period of constant unrest and popular unrest, it became necessary to directly resolve matters by the sovereign with the participation of his close associates. However, this order did not last long. After the abolition of the Supreme Privy Council, complaints were again addressed to the sovereign, who was already burdened by their direct consideration. Evidence of this is the established punishment system for querullants, according to which for ignoring the procedure for filing complaints with the established judicial instances and appealing directly to the sovereign, the first time was punishable by hard labor for a month, the second time they were publicly sent to a year of hard labor, and the third time - public punishment with whips and a reference to penal servitude forever "to Nerchinsk, with the serf landlords counting them as recruits."

With the change in the administrative division of the state in 1775, the judicial system was also reformed, which already consists of six instances: the district court as a court of first instance, the zemstvo court, the chambers of the provincial court, the Senate represented by collegiums and the general assembly, the emperor as the highest instance. In the provinces, the chambers checked decisions on criminal and civil cases in the appellate and revision order. The audit differed from the appeal in that the cases were considered from the point of view of compliance with the forms and procedures of legal proceedings established by law, and in criminal cases also “to justify innocence, so to clarify a crime, or to expose a criminal” . For the first time, a period for filing complaints was established, which was equal to one week. A fee was to be paid along with the complaint. The reason for the revision of the court decision was its inconsistency with laws and regulations, i.e. violation of substantive and procedural law. Prosecutors and governors were also given the right to challenge court decisions. The establishment of the chambers of the provincial court decentralized judicial control. Contradictory jurisprudence and the slowness of the movement of cases in the courts caused public discontent, and as a result, the denial of such an organization of the judicial system.

In order to better manage public affairs, 8 ministries are established, including the Ministry of Justice. His competence included the right to supervise the correctness of the resolution of disputes and the movement of cases in the courts, the compilation of statistical and analytical reports containing the reasons for the dynamics of the growth of cases. As a result of this transformation, prosecutors were included in the system of justice bodies, and the Minister of Justice was at the same time the Prosecutor General. The measures taken by the state did not improve the situation in the courts, but only contributed to clarifying the reasons for the violation of the law and judicial red tape. Therefore, after a quarter of a century, the procedure for sending reports about violations of the laws of the empire and complaints about court decisions is changing again with the abolition of the Special Office of the Ministry of the Interior and the establishment of “My Own Office”. The persons participating in the case and their representatives had the right to appeal to the Office. There were requirements for the form and content of the complaint. The grounds for leaving the complaint without motion, in addition to non-compliance with its form and content, were the expiration of the deadline for filing established by decree, as well as “written randomly or senselessly, on scraps of paper or with indecent expressions” . To correct the identified shortcomings of the petitions, a period was set, which could not exceed one month. Properly executed complaints were sent to the Special State Presence for preliminary consideration.

Despite the fact that the head of state paid attention to the issues of proper administration of justice, the measures he took were not effective enough. On the contrary, they created even greater difficulties. So, for example, the Manifesto “on the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the status of free rural inhabitants, and on the organization of their life” of February 18, 1861, welcomed the creation in each province and county of World Mediators and World Congresses to consider local disputes in connection with the implementation of the new Regulations on peasants who emerged from serfdom. However, their creation on the ground was not widespread and rapid, which deceived the expectations of society in obtaining fair justice in a faster and simpler way.

In 1864, the institution of magistrates was introduced, which affected the number of court instances, which increased to seven: magistrates, congresses of magistrates, county courts, chambers of the provincial court, the Senate represented by the cassation departments and the general assembly, the emperor as the highest judicial instance. Procedural codes are being adopted that regulate, among other things, appeal, cassation and revision of judicial acts. At the same time, consideration of the case on the merits was allowed only in two instances (in the court of first and appeal instances). The Senate did not consider cases on the merits, but oversaw "the preservation of the exact force of the law and its uniform execution by all judicial institutions of the Empire", and, in fact, also carried out the functions of a constitutional court. The statutes of (civil and criminal) legal proceedings provided for the types of requests for the annulment of a court decision: for cassation, review of the decision, and the requests of non-participants in the case were known only to the civil process. The basis for the cancellation of the decision (verdict) of the court in cassation was a clear violation of the meaning of the law or its incorrect interpretation, non-compliance with the jurisdiction of the dispute. The reason for the review of the court decision was the appeal of the parties in the case or the protest of the prosecutor. The limits of the verification were limited by the arguments of the cassation complaints (protests). The difference between the reform court and the previous one was that the class jurisdiction of cases was abolished along with the relevant courts, and the trial was based on democratic principles: equality and competitiveness of the parties, oral, immediacy, publicity and the right to defense.

However, the growing revolutionary mood in society and the practice of justices of the peace, which was not in favor of the overlords, led the authorities to carry out a counter-form already 7 years after it began. Its measures included limiting the democratic institutions of justice: the independence and irremovability of judges, publicity and competitiveness of the process, consideration of criminal cases by jurors, as well as limiting the right of the defendant to defense, changing the procedure for investigating and considering political cases, the competence of world justice was almost nullified. A significant increase in the number of political cases led to a change in the rules for their jurisdiction, which were now transferred to the judicial chambers of the provincial court from the Senate, with which the latter could not cope. The creation of a special supreme court for criminal cases in 1878 finally leveled the achievement of a reform court equal to all.

Mass dissatisfaction with the slowness of the administration of justice and its quality, the plurality of judicial instances again led to the denial of such a judicial system by society. M. Bakunin's Revolutionary Catechism of the Russian Emigrant can be considered the embodiment of public sentiment of that period. Criticizing the new approach to solving existing problems, V.P. Bezobrazov wrote that in “the most “advanced” (?) modern revolutionary teachings, it is directly and literally stated that “a true revolutionary must abandon all science of the present world, leave it to future generations. He must know only one science of destruction.<...>Of course, it is impossible to imagine that any human thought could reach a more extreme self-negation ... this mental chaos in concepts is terrible, but one cannot but rejoice when evil in human society reaches the last step of logical absurdity, when it reaches similar self-denial or internal contradiction. This inevitable logical and historical sequence of revolutionary movements, separated from the successes of our sciences in its very essence, can only be welcomed as a good sign of the times, as a harbinger of an imminent crisis in the ailments of our time. His words most accurately reflect the emerging trend of denying the existing system of government, including the judiciary. Considering that they were stated thirty-eight years before the complete collapse of the state system of government, it can be argued that the philosophy of the destruction of the autocratic way of managing state affairs has firmly entered the minds of the revolutionaries and was positioned by them as a new ideology.

Evidence of this is the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of November 24, 1917 No. 1 "On the Court", which abolishes all existing judicial institutions. Instead of the abolished judicial institutions, justice is administered by judges elected from the people who resolve legal disputes not on the basis of laws, but on the basis of "revolutionary conscience".

Here we should stop in the presentation of the history of the evolution of the domestic judicial system, since we have come to the starting point - the veche. Of course, on a new turn of the spiral, this body was already called the revolutionary tribunal or local court, which resolved legal disputes on the basis of moral norms and revolutionary consciousness, and not on formal law.

In the absence of coordinated legislation and a unified system of courts, as well as in most cases of lack of education, including legal education among judges, conflicting judicial practice was generated. In fact, arbitrariness was happening everywhere, since everyone judged based on his own idea of ​​​​revolutionary justice. The difference between these court decisions and the veche ones was that the population lacked unanimity with the result of the consideration of the case. The denial of bourgeois law and the foundations of the state system, including the judiciary, led to the denial of the newly created court, which predetermined the movement towards a new round of development.

Numerous complaints from the population about judicial arbitrariness led to the fact that six months later the ideologists of the revolution made a decision to establish cassation courts and the body of the Supreme Judicial Control, which were supposed to form a uniform cassation practice and propose to the legislature to adopt new laws in the event of "an irremovable contradiction between the existing law and people's sense of justice". However, the Supreme Judicial Control was never created. The newly created courts of cassation considered cases both on the basis of the arguments of the complaint and in full. The grounds for the annulment of court decisions in the cassation procedure were a violation of the law, and also if the cassation instance recognizes that “the appealed decision is clearly unfair”. However, the establishment of a two-tier judicial system could not correct the situation of widespread judicial arbitrariness, since the courts of cassation were decentralized, which ultimately predetermined the centralization of the judicial system. Paradoxical as it may seem, the revolutionary legislator, in fact, partially reproduces the former legal model for correcting judicial errors. The name of the higher court as cassation is also not accidental, since people still retain the idea of ​​ensuring the quality of justice by the bourgeois cassation instance.

By a decree of March 10, 1921, in order to “establish the correct and uniform application of the laws of the RSFSR by all judicial bodies and the conformity of their activities with the general direction of the policy of the Workers 'and Peasants' Government”, the People's Commissariat of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the NKJ) is vested with the right to verify decisions that have entered into legal force and the right to give guiding explanations to all judicial bodies "according to the current Soviet law". At the same time, the People's Commissariat of Justice through the Supreme Court gives "guidelines to judicial institutions on issues of judicial practice" . The imposition of supervision over the fairness of judicial decisions on the judicial authority, in fact, reproduced the feudal model of power organization, which combined legislative, executive and judicial power. This functional symbiosis has had a powerful influence on the methods and procedures of judicial review. Along with the NKJ, the central and regional authorities, provincial executive committees of the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Red Army Deputies had the right to initiate supervisory proceedings. Petitions were allowed from local institutions, organizations, officials and individuals, which were submitted to the provincial department of justice or directly to the NKJ. However, the Department of Supreme Judicial Control accepted such appeals only after receiving the conclusion of the collegium of the corresponding provincial department of justice. The basis for the annulment of court decisions and sentences in the order of judicial supervision was “obvious violations or non-application of the laws of the Soviet government; accepted by the judicial authority for its proceedings of cases that are not subject to trial; a clear contradiction of the decision or sentence with the guiding principles of Soviet legislation and the general policy of the workers' and peasants' government. With the establishment of the prosecutor's office in 1922, the circle of persons with the right to start checking judicial decisions in the cassation and supervisory procedures expanded.

Comparing the established procedure for filing complaints about unjust decisions and their verification with the previous procedures, we can conclude that it is similar to the model of the Moscow principality in terms of filing procedural appeals to a specially established body, which, in turn, brings them to the highest authority in the state . Thus, as the revolutionaries did not deny the ideologically alien bourgeois legal institutions, they almost recreated the outdated model of communication between the population and the authorities on issues of judicial protection through a bureaucratic filter. In addition, disputes between organizations that were considered by arbitration commissions until 1992, as well as some offenses that were considered by police "troikas" and "troikas" of the NKVD before the Great Patriotic War, were excluded from the sphere of judicial competence.

Intervention and civil war led to the creation of a union state, this led to the enlargement and complexity of the state apparatus of government, including the judiciary. In 1922, the Supreme Court of the RSFSR was formed, which was entrusted with the exercise of supervision over all judicial bodies.

It should be avenged that this idea was seriously questioned by contemporaries, since at that time it was believed that the formation of the unity of judicial practice and bringing judicial decisions in line with Soviet laws is a function of management, therefore, entrusting judicial supervision of all judicial places meant "not only a fundamental confusion functions of the two currently separate bodies, but also a direct undermining of the principle of priority of the NKJ as a government body that manages the courts and is responsible for judicial policy. This point of view explains a lot, for example, why the administrative procedure for verifying the legality of court decisions that have entered into force was authorized in the procedural codes of that time.

The reproduction of the administrative procedure for verifying judicial acts by way of supervision in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR and the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR predetermined the peculiarities of proceedings in the court of the supervisory instance. These include: the exclusive right of officials of the court and the prosecutor's office to start a supervisory review, their discretionary powers to decide the fate of the supervisory protest, a significant restriction of the democratic principles of legal proceedings (optionality, competitiveness, and equality of the parties, publicity), the right to defense. The limitation of the principles of legal proceedings was that the proceedings in the court of the supervisory instance began and ended against the will of the parties in the case, they were not sent copies of the protests, and the case was checked without their participation. The consolidation of a centralized procedure for verifying legal decisions that have entered into legal force on protests of officials of the court and prosecutor's office in the procedural codes was intended to ensure the legality and unity of judicial practice. A preemptive period was introduced, during which it was possible to check a court decision (verdict) that had entered into legal force. The grounds for the annulment of the court decision by way of supervision in the civil process were "especially significant violations of existing laws or obvious violations of the interests of the workers' and peasants' state or the working masses", and in the criminal process - the grounds for cancellation in the cassation procedure, which, in fact, duplicated the cassation authority, but at a higher level. At the same time, the cassation instance of the provincial court checked the legality of the judicial act, and in the event of a violation, sent the case by way of supervision to the Supreme Court of the RSFSR (Article 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, Chapter 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure

RFSR), in which it was checked in the same way and could reach officials with the right to protest. The right to give explanations belonged to the Plenum of the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, the circle of officials authorized to protest against judicial acts that have entered into force is expanded by delegating this right first to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR and his deputy, the prosecutor of the republic and his assistant at the Supreme Court of the RSFSR, and then to the People's Commissariat of Justice, the prosecutor of the republic, region, territory and districts. Judicial control is also being decentralized: the presidium of the regional and corresponding courts is empowered to issue a new decision on the case.

With the organization of the USSR Prosecutor's Office in 1934, the expansion of the functions of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the formation of the Judicial Supervisory Board in it, the circle of persons with the right to protest was expanded, and the number of judicial supervisory instances increased from three to five, respectively. The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the USSR, the Judicial Supervisory Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR were vested with the right to consider the protest.

On August 16, 1938, the Law on the Judiciary of the USSR granted the right to bring a protest by way of supervision only to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the chairmen of the supreme courts of the Union republics, the Prosecutor of the USSR and the prosecutors of the Union republics. While maintaining the circle of supervisory instances, the powers of the prosecutor of the territory, region and district, as well as the chairmen of district, regional and regional courts were limited. These persons could only claim the case, for the final decision on the existence of grounds for bringing a protest, they made a presentation to authorized persons. The Ministry of Justice and its local bodies could also apply to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the USSR or to the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Union Republic and officials of the USSR Prosecutor's Office.

This period of development of the domestic judicial system is similar to the period of the pre-reform court, when the state responded to the problems of excessive workload of courts, slowness of the process and judicial errors by introducing new justice bodies, which, according to the authorities, were supposed to eliminate the existing difficulties. With an increase in the number of officials who can initiate the verification of the legality of judicial acts, the persons participating in the case did not have such a right, which partially repeats the previous stage in the development of the mechanism for correcting judicial errors and forming the unity of judicial practice. Thus, the increase in the number of judicial instances and the circle of persons of non-judicial bodies that could initiate the verification of the legality of judicial acts was and is considered as a tradition of law.

By the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of August 14, 1954 "On the Formation of Presidiums in the Supreme Courts of the Union and Autonomous Republics, Territorial, Regional Courts and Courts of Autonomous Regions", changes were made to the hierarchy of judicial supervision, judicial control was decentralized, and, as a result, the number of court instances increased from five to six.

In its further development in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR and the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR, the mechanism for checking the correction of judicial errors has not undergone fundamental changes, with the exception of the wording of the grounds for the annulment of judicial decisions and the abolition of the procedural period for appealing judicial acts by way of supervision. The regulation of supervisory proceedings, designed to ensure the correction of judicial errors and legality in the country, is supplemented by a number of provisions regulating the issues of bringing a protest and its withdrawal, the procedure for considering a protest, the powers of the supervisory court and the binding nature of its instructions. Provisions were introduced on communicating the motives for refusal to the person who filed the complaint, in the absence of grounds for bringing a protest in the order of supervision and on sending copies of the protests brought in the case, and notifying interested parties about the time and place of its consideration. As can be seen, there is a gradual return to the legal regulation of democratic principles of legal proceedings at this stage of the process, with their full implementation in two lower courts. At the same time, an indication of the guiding nature of the explanations of the Supreme Court is retained in the Law on the Judiciary of the RSFSR 5*. It was the leadership of the courts in respect of the rule of law and the formation of unity of judicial practice that was and remained one of the tasks of the highest judicial body.

With the adoption of the Concept of Judicial Reform and the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, cardinal changes are taking place in the structure of the judicial system: the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and constitutional courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are being established, checking for compliance with the Constitution of Russia and the constitutions of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, respectively, of the adopted normative legal acts, as well as arbitration courts, whose competence includes the consideration of civil cases of economic entities and the implementation of normative control in the field of business regulation. To regulate the judicial process in the newly created courts, the legislator adopts the relevant regulatory legal acts.

As a result of these transformations of the judicial system, civil cases have been and are being considered in two parallel judicial systems: in courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts. At the same time, 6 judicial instances functioned in the hierarchy of courts of general jurisdiction (the district court as a court of first instance, the cassation instance and 3 supervisory instances represented by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Region and the corresponding court, the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR), but in fact, there were more supervisory instances, since the Prosecutor of the RSFSR, the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR and his deputies had the right to protest against a judicial act that had entered into legal force. Therefore, a supervisory appeal could be filed in multiples of the number of these officials. There were 3 judicial instances in the system of arbitration courts (the court of first instance, the court of cassation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia as the supreme body of judicial control, carrying out verification in a collegial composition).

Criminal cases were considered by courts of general jurisdiction also in 6 instances, so the situation with the plurality of judicial instances was similar.

Cases on administrative offenses were considered by non-judicial and judicial authorities, and, accordingly, decisions on cases of administrative offenses could be verified only in one judicial instance.

Against this background, the right to give clarifications to lower courts on issues of judicial practice is being decentralized, namely, the Supreme Court of Russia and the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia have it. The Constitutional Court of Russia will interpret only the provisions of the Constitution of Russia.

With the establishment of Magistrates' Justice in the system of courts of general jurisdiction in 1998 and the introduction of appellate proceedings in 2000, the number of court instances in the system of courts of general jurisdiction increased to 8: a justice of the peace, a district court as a court of appeal, a regional and corresponding court as a court of cassation and supervisory instance, the chairman of the regional and corresponding court, the Supreme Court of Russia represented by the Judicial Collegium, the Presidium, the Chairman and his deputies.

In arbitration courts, an appellate instance is established and the number of judicial instances increases to 4.

The multiplicity of judicial instances, the repeated verification of judicial acts and its slowness in the system of courts of general jurisdiction, which could last for years, caused criticism not only from the population, but also from supranational authorities. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the European Court) issued a number of judgments in which it found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) made recommendations in Resolutions RcsDH (2005/20) of October 5, 2005 and RcsDH (2006)1 dated February 8, 2006 on the improvement of procedural legislation.

In 2002, the procedural legislation was updated, according to which civil cases under the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction are considered in 9 courts, and those under the jurisdiction of arbitration courts - in four; criminal cases - in nine, cases of administrative offenses - in three. The system for checking the legality of judicial acts consists of appeal, cassation and supervisory procedures. The difference between the established procedure for considering supervisory complaints against judicial acts of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into legal force from the previous one was that the practice-proven algorithm for studying supervisory complaints (representations of the prosecutor) was sanctioned by judges of supervisory courts “on behalf of” all the same officials of the supervisory court instances. A one-year period was also introduced during which it was possible to apply with a corresponding request. As a result, the number of supervisory instances in civil and criminal proceedings has increased to 12, since court officials of each supervisory instance have the right to “disagree” with the “refusal” rulings of judges issued as a result of studying the supervisory appeal (prosecutor’s presentation) and the requested case. Significant violations of the law were the grounds for canceling or changing judicial acts by way of supervision. At the same time, the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation did not give a transcript of what is meant by the materiality of the violation of the law, thereby leaving the decision on this issue to the discretion of the supervisory court. The Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia ensures the unity of judicial practice through the consideration of "reasoned submissions on the review of judicial decisions by way of supervision" of officials of this court (Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). A similar procedure for checking the legality was established with regard to sentences, and the number of supervisory instances in relation to the number of courts deciding the case on the merits was also unprecedented.

In 2007, changes are made to the procedure for verifying judicial acts of courts of general jurisdiction that have entered into legal force: the procedural period for applying to a supervisory court is reduced from one year to six months, and the number of court instances is reduced to 5, namely, the right of court officials is abolished of the supervisory authority "not to agree" with the "refusal" rulings of the judges. However, this did not eliminate excessive slowness, multiple supervisory checks and violation of the principle of legal certainty.

In 2010, decentralization of judicial control took place: the possibility of appealing judicial acts of justices of the peace that have entered into legal force to the Supreme Court of Russia and renaming supervisory proceedings into cassation proceedings are abolished, and the former cassation instance has become known as the appellate instance. In fact, without fundamentally changing anything in the verification of judicial acts that have entered into legal force in civil proceedings, the legislator tried to bring the system of judicial control in the courts of general jurisdiction to the denominator of the number of reviewing judicial instances in the system of arbitration courts. However, such a transformation did not lead to the desired result, since the number of courts in the system of courts of general jurisdiction and in the system of arbitration courts is different, as well as different grounds for canceling or changing judicial acts in the appellate and cassation procedures, which did not allow creating a single level of procedural guarantees of judicial protection of subjects of economic activity and the population. This, in turn, led to the introduction of evidence-based proposals to eliminate "new" problems after the next "improvement" of procedural legislation. Similar decentralization processes have taken place in the criminal process.

Decentralization of the supervisory review also took place in cases of administrative offenses by giving the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of Russia the right to consider supervisory complaints (representations of the prosecutor). However, this decentralization of judicial control is due to the fact that initially, by the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, only officials of the courts of supervisory instances, who found it difficult to cope with the workload, were vested with the right to verify judicial acts that have entered into legal force. It was especially felt in the Supreme Court, where the Chairman and his deputies (and in reality only one deputy) considered complaints against rulings on cases of administrative offenses from all over the country. For the same reason, the responsibility for the formation of judicial practice in administrative cases was very high, since it was formed individually. However, this burden was shared with the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court already in 2011.

At the end of the study of the history of the emergence and development of the domestic judicial system, let us dwell on the Law

of the Russian Federation on the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation dated February 05, 2014 No. 2-FKZ "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", which abolishes the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia together with the supervisory authority that operated in it. As G.T. Yermoshin, the implementation of these changes “will require the abolition, amendment or addition of 28 federal constitutional and federal laws listed in the explanatory note. In fact, at the highest level of the Russian leadership, it has been stated that all legislation on the judiciary, including the legal regulation of the judiciary, legal proceedings, financing of the judiciary, and the status of a judge, is subject to revision. However, we are assured only of a technical merger of the highest judicial bodies to form the unity of judicial practice.

At the same time, the merger of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia and the Supreme Court of Russia has already led to an increase in judicial instances in the system of arbitration courts: from 4 to 5, respectively, since the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of Russia, in fact, duplicates the cassation instance in the system of arbitration courts.

The study of the history of the emergence and development of the domestic judicial system in the context of the laws of dialectics allows us to draw the following conclusions.

The line forming the spiral is the hierarchy of the judiciary. At the same time, as a line of a lower order, it represents the unification and differentiation of the specialization of judges in considering and resolving cases, the jurisdiction and jurisdiction of disputes, the centralization and decentralization of judicial control, and, as a result, the redistribution of powers between the courts.

A decrease or increase in the number of judicial instances occurs simultaneously with a change in the administrative-territorial division of the state and the principles of public administration.

Depending on which authority (judicial or non-judicial) heads the judicial system and checks the decisions (sentences) of the court, there is a correlation between its principles and the procedure for correcting judicial errors.

The legal mechanism for correcting judicial errors arises in the context of the instance of the judicial system and is concentrated in the highest authority of the state. After the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, it functions only in those judicial instances that are considered supreme in the corresponding subject of the country (union, federation). Its retransmission is due to the reproduction of the features of the state structure and the desire of the sovereign to ensure the unity of judicial practice and the unity of the legal space through the correction of a judicial error.

Thus, the mechanism for correcting judicial errors has a dialectical trinity:

• 1) protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person and a citizen;
• 2) formation of unity of judicial practice;
• 3) ensuring the unity of the legal space.

and the subject composition of persons contributes to the establishment of effective rules for judicial protection (for example, cases of "trading people", cases on economic disputes, political cases). The absence of the interest of the state causes problems in the legal regulation of judicial protection.

The foreign and domestic policies of the state predetermine the rules for the jurisdiction of cases concerning the public interest, and the procedure for their consideration, the mechanism for correcting judicial errors and methods for verifying judicial acts.

Usually, researchers, after analyzing recurring objective phenomena, draw conclusions about their periodization, which is based on some classifying feature. Therefore, in works on the historical sciences, periodization usually follows the dates of significant events; in studies in the philosophical sciences - on scientific schools and their influence on new trends; in dissertations in political science - on the change of political formations; and in works on the legal sciences, periodization is carried out either by the institutions of law among scientists dealing with substantive law problems, or by the implementation of the activities of the court by scientists studying the problems of procedural law. Each scientist in his scientific specialty will be right to offer his own vision on the result of a phenomenological description of the evolution of the domestic judicial system.

However, the author’s task is not to argue about the number of cycles, their duration and dating, but to determine, through the identified causes of the variability of the mechanism for correcting judicial errors, the patterns of development of the domestic judicial system and the factors influencing it, to analyze the measures taken by states to respond to problems to use them as indicators for assessing the state of the judicial system to balance it. We deliberately avoid building ideal models of the judicial system, since we share the conviction of S. Kapitsa that with “rapid development, social and economic gradients are constantly increasing, since there is no time to establish a balance” . Therefore, there is no point in creating ideal models of the judicial system, since they will be based on the experience of past years, when the course of processes was different, and, as a result, will obviously lag behind reality. The problem of the stability of the judicial system and its effectiveness should be looked at from the point of view of the paradox of the state of the judicial system and the measures taken by the state to respond to the existing difficulties. In this regard, the tools for assessing the state of the judicial system are of particular relevance for the correct choice of decisions that will balance the judicial system in dynamics.

The judicial system from 1917 to the present has repeated the hypercoil of its previous development (albeit in a shorter time frame) and has again reached a critical level in the number of judicial instances. Now it is at the point of bifurcation, and the next stage has not yet arrived. This is confirmed by proposals to abolish the courts, establish a unified judicial system, and others.

The current cycle is connected with ensuring the unity of judicial practice through the unification of the Supreme Court of Russia and the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia. The current system is transitional (unstable).

External factors influencing the judicial system include external security threats, changes in the political regime and economic course, changes in the methods of public administration and the administrative-territorial division of the country, business cycles and the investment climate.

The internal factors of the transformation of the judicial system include: an increase in legal disputes that are in the proceedings of the courts; significant judicial workload and ineffective mechanism for correcting judicial errors; rules of jurisdiction and jurisdiction of disputes; plurality of judicial instances; the duration of legal proceedings and the frequency of verification of judicial acts that have entered into legal force.

As a result of the influence of external factors, there are structural changes in the judicial system and changes in the rules for the administration of justice, in the mechanism for correcting judicial errors, in the competence of the judiciary and in the quality of justice. This process is considered not as linear, but as a spiral, having its own patterns and cycles.

The progressive development and repetition of crises of the judicial system gives grounds to draw a number of theoretical and practical conclusions about the patterns of its dialectical development: repetition, self-similarity, complication and simplification, unification and specialization, etc. This will make it easier to understand the processes taking place in the judicial system and will make it possible to make forecasts and make plans to balance the judicial system in order to increase its efficiency.

• Gotye Yu. Separation of the judiciary from the administrative // ​​Judicial reform / Ed. N.V. Davydova, N.N. Polyansky. - M .: Publishing house ASSOCIATION, 1915.- S. 26.
• Gauthier Y. Decree. op. - P.18.
• Thus, in the first four articles of the Novgorod Judicial Charter, one can read that “The holy monk Theophilus, appointed to the archbishopric of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, judge his own court ...”, “and the posadnik judge his own court ...”, “Atysetsky judge his own court” // Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries. In nine volumes. T.I. Legislation of Ancient Russia. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1984. - S. 304.
• Syromyatnikov B.I. Essay on the history of the court in ancient and new Russia // Judicial reform / Ed. N.V. Davydova, N.N. Polyansky. - M.: Book publishing house ASSOCIATION, 1915. - S. 65.
• “and strike me at them with a brow, and tell me the great prince to become myself for a time” / Dvinskaya charter of 1397 [Electronic resource]. URL: http://law.edu.ru (accessed May 31, 2015).
• “Whoever does not have to go to this literacy, be away from me from the great prince of execution” / Ibid.
• Cherepin L.V. Monuments of Russian law. - M., 1955. - S. 387.
• See, for example, the Sudebnik of 1497. Reader on the history of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Titova Yu.P. - M.: PROSPECT, 2001. - S. 36.
• “The complainant will come to the boyar, and do not send him the zhapobniks from yourself, give justice to all complainants in everything that suits them” (Article 2 of the Sudebnik of 1497). Reader on the history of the state and law of Russia. Textbook / Ed. Titova Yu.P. - M.: PROSPECT, 2001. - S. 36.

ESSAY

on the topic: "Judicial power: its development and formation in Russia"

1. Judicial power X - XIX centuries.

The history of the court dates back to the time of Kievan Rus, where the court (as an action, as a manifestation of the right to dispose, that is, as power) was created by the prince. The court merged with the administration. The merging of the court with the administration allowed not only the prince to be a judge at the same time, but also the princely posadniks and tiuns.

In the Novgorod Republic, judicial power was exercised by a veche (a meeting of the inhabitants of Novgorod - the Highest Court), a prince, posadniks, an archbishop, and a headman.

In Moscow Russia XV-XVII centuries. the court was carried out by the prince (then the tsar), the Boyar Duma, some orders (such as departments, departments), and local governors, volostels, and estates. There were judges “with a report” and “without a report”: the decisions of the first were approved by the sovereign, the decisions of the second could be appealed. The combination of powerful administrative and judicial posts in one person under the Russian tsars became a strong tradition.

Judgment for the princes was a profitable business, because. in his favor were vira, sales, fines. Gradually, the princely court turned locally into the court of its governors, who received counties and volosts for feeding. All these persons involved in the "judicial science" were interested in obtaining judicial profits, and it is quite possible that bribery, which still takes place today, is a consequence of the heavy tradition of the old corrupt court. The first monarch who challenged the feeders, who acted to the detriment of the interests of the state, was Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who published the Sudebnik of 1550 at the beginning of his reign. Sudebnik defended mainly the interests of the Moscow government and “a judicial duel, or a field in which the final decision of the case was presented to arms, became a procedural part of the legal proceedings. The ideas of the field were based on the belief in the victory of the one whose weapon God blesses.

Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1649 publishes the Judicial Code, which made the lip courts a property of the administration.

As you can see, not a single state structure could do without a court, but it was built into the state structure in different ways.

The first attempts to separate the court from the administration were made by Tsar Peter the Great. Under him, in 1713, the position of judge was established in the provinces. The Swedish judiciary was taken as a model. For the first time in Russia, special judicial institutions were created - court and city courts, independent of the governors and governors.

At the same time, the competence of these judges was not clearly defined, and in order to resolve the most complex cases, they had to apply to the College of Justice. Were also created - the military Court, the spiritual Court. The highest court was the Senate.

Immediately after the death of Peter under Catherine I, the counter-reform destroyed the slightest fruits of his transformations: the judiciary returned to the governors and governors.

Russian legislation of the XV-XVII centuries. testifies that the courts of that time should not so much seek to clarify the truth as to intimidate a person. The court was an unbiased body, and carried out an order from the administrative authorities: it is better to punish, sometimes innocent, than not to punish anyone, because the main goal was a general warning. These tasks were met by the procedural legislation of the era of Peter I. A detailed presentation of Peter the Great's judicial reforms can be found in volumes 3 and 4 of Russian legislation X-XX.

The judicial reform of Catherine II provided for the creation of county and zemstvo courts for the nobility; urban and provincial for citizens; lower and upper reprisals - for free peasants. Catherine II knew perfectly well what the separation of powers was and why an independent court was needed: Montesquieu's ideas were directly reflected in her famous "Instruction". After the French Revolution, which frightened Catherine, a turn to counter-reform began, there was a "rollback to the previous pre-reform positions."

Thus, the implementation of certain power functions with the help of the court is observed, but the court was not considered as a power, and was not singled out as an independent power structure.

In the 60s of the nineteenth century, an understanding came of the relationship of all social phenomena with the state of justice, the physical impossibility of achieving social changes in the presence of class judges slavishly dependent on the authorities, who allowed arbitrariness under the cloak of secrecy of paper production and compensated for low judicial salaries with bribes.

The tsarist government also concluded that the blind borrowing and mechanical transfer of foreign models of reforms without taking into account the socio-political situation, national specifics and the mentality of the people does not effectively update political and social life.

History has taught, and the democratic court reform of 1864 was a more successful attempt to shape the judiciary. At the same time, it was necessary to use a phased method of conducting judicial reform, as well as to change its fundamental legal principles before the trial by jury was revealed to the Russian people - one of the achievements of judicial reform.

2. Judiciary in the second half of the 19th century

The reforms of the second half of the 19th century created in Russia local (volost courts) and general courts (district courts for several counties).

The prosecutorial system was headed by a governor-general.

The council of sworn attorneys became the governing body of the bar association, and both jurors and private attorneys could act in defense at the trial.

To certify business papers, a system of notary offices was created in provincial and district cities.

Justices of the peace were elected by district zemstvo assemblies and city dumas. The world district included the county and the cities that were part of it.

The magistrate's court consisted of two parts: a magistrate (district or honorary) and a congress of justices of the peace.

Local global justice was created to consider minor criminal and civil cases and was supposed to show the democratization of the court and really bring justice closer to the population, as well as unload general courts from the abundance of "petty" cases. This institution was supposed to contribute to the formation of a true sense of justice and human dignity in the Russian people.

With the help of world justice, they hoped to ensure a quick, without unnecessary formalities, consideration of cases, than to finally realize the people's dream of a court "quick, right, merciful and equal ...". These goals of judicial reform were expressed in the Decree that approved the Judicial Statutes, November 20, 1864: the Statute of Criminal Procedure, the Statute of Civil Procedure, the Establishment of Judicial Regulations, and the Statute of the Penal and Correctional Punishments imposed by Justices of the Peace.

They defined new democratic principles of judiciary and process. The separation of the judiciary from the administrative, independence and irremovability of judges was proclaimed. The class principle of court organization was abolished. The number of judicial instances was reduced: instead of fourteen, there were three: the district court, the judicial chamber, the Senate.

While the world court was elective, the composition of the general courts was appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice. The combination of the principles of election and appointment in the recruitment of the judiciary is a traditional phenomenon for Russian justice.

The Judicial Statutes laid the foundation for the application of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers in Russia and legislated the term "Judicial Power".

District courts were established for several counties, consisting of a chairman and members.

An institute of investigators was established at the district courts, carrying out preliminary investigations under the supervision of the prosecutor's office.

The reform separated the preliminary investigation from the judicial investigation.

Cases on complaints and protests against sentences of the district court and malfeasance were assigned to the judicial chambers.

The cassation departments of the Senate considered complaints of violations of the "direct meaning of the laws."

The district courts acted as part of a crown judge, designed to ensure the common interest of all subjects in each specific case, and jurors, representing the people's principle, and in combination they provided justice with a democratic form of exercise of power. The jurors provided a realistic view of the actions subject to their consideration.

Jury trials were expected to deal a blow to judicial arbitrariness. Judges and judicial figures appeared, whose names are forever recorded in the history of the formation and establishment of the judiciary in Russia: A. Koni, F. Plevako, P. Aleksandrov, S. Andreevsky, K. Arseniev - they aroused interest and aroused respect for true justice raised the concept of human dignity to a higher level of values. An example of this is the case against Vera Zasulich. On January 24, 1878, Vera Zasulich fired a revolver at the St. Petersburg mayor, Adjutant General Trepov, and seriously wounded him. The reason for her actions was Trepov's order to punish the political prisoner Bogolyubov with rods, which was executed in prison, despite the official ban on the use of rods as punishment. Zasulich experienced the hardships of illegal criminal prosecution for seven years and, like no one else, understood the state of Bogolyubov, whom she was not familiar with. She avenged the desecration of human dignity. Her shot was a protest against the order of the St. Petersburg mayor.

The chairman in the process was A.F. Koni, who prayed to God that the jurors would pass a guilty verdict as consistent with the legislation in force and the circumstances of the case. At the same time, the jury acquitted V. Zasulich, and the audience in the courtroom applauded the jury's verdict. The jury demonstrated by its decision the actual independence, the true realization of the right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice, showed common sense in life and a reasonable understanding of the fate of a particular person. The jury of the 19th century was a spokesman for public legal consciousness, people's ideas about conscience, justice, truth, and was called upon to protect human rights.

The stage-by-stage judicial reform dragged on for thirty-five years, some of its institutions underwent a change, and the magistrates' courts lost their original purpose and also ceased to exist.

3. Judicial power of the Soviet period

The revolution of 1917 led to the emergence of Soviet Russia, which, in the process of building its judicial system, rejected the institution of jurors and gave preference to people's assessors.

Court Decree No. 1, approved by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917, abolished the pre-revolutionary judicial system of the common court. Instead, local courts were created, consisting of a professional judge and two members of the public - people's assessors, united in one collegium. People's assessors were elected by local councils. Judges were replaceable, which corresponded to the political situation. County and metropolitan congresses of local judges became the cassation instances.

The solution of cases of counter-revolution and sabotage was imputed to another link in the judicial system - the revolutionary tribunal.

The aforementioned Decree liquidated the bar and the prosecutor's office, and the activities of the magistrate's court were suspended. The suspended activity of world justice has not been resumed for the entire time of the existence of Soviet statehood.

On March 7 (February 22), 1918, the Decree on Court No. 2 was adopted, which created district courts, in which collegiums of three permanent members and four people's meetings dealt with civil cases, and collegiums consisting of a chairman and twelve people's assessors dealt with criminal cases made "decisions on the fact of the crime and the punishment."

The result of the first stage in the formation of a single Soviet court, which unified the judicial system, was summed up by documents dated November 30, 1918, called the Regulations on the People's Court of the RSFSR. People's courts were staffed with the active participation of the soviets and their executive committees. People's courts, consisting of one people's judge and several people's assessors (the number of people's assessors for each court was determined by the executive committee), tried criminal, civil, administrative cases according to their territorial and other types of jurisdiction, taking into account the powers of the courts to consider certain cases. In the future, the Soviet judicial system did not undergo significant changes in the principles of its organization, and the court always depended on state authorities.

The Soviet state in its first Constitution of 1918 consolidated the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry. In accordance with the Marxist-Leninist provisions officially recognized by the state, it was proclaimed that after the socialist revolution and until the complete victory of communism (when the state must die out altogether) there can be no other statehood than the dictatorship of the proletariat with its inherent principles, institutions, norms, methods for implementing political authorities. Despite the fact that from the first years of Soviet legislation has been intensively developed, ideas about the place and role of law under socialism were blurred. It was believed that the law under socialism hinders the movement towards communism.

At the same time, both the first and all subsequent Soviet constitutions laid down the legal norms regulating the activities and organization of the court, the reference ones. At the same time, between the constitutional declarations and reality lay an undivided abyss, generated by the omnipotence of the Bolshevik party, then the Communists.

The role of state-legal principles in public and political life was underestimated. The absence of democratic traditions, the instilled and fueled faith in the speedy building of communism with its system of distribution and leveling (or, rather, averaging) slowed down the pace and did not contribute to the development of the methods of Soviet state-legal construction.

Centralization and punitive-mandatory norms and management methods became embittered. The provisions written in the Constitution and current legislation turned into a fiction, because they did not correspond to the realities of life. Soon the regime of Stalinist despotism was formed and strengthened in the country, under which mass repressions and terror against their own people became possible.

On July 10, 1934, the CEC (Central Executive Committee) of the USSR adopted a resolution according to which cases of counter-revolutionary crimes and against the order of administration are transferred to the newly organized special collegiums, consisting of chairmen and two members of the court, consisting of the Supreme Court of the USSR, the supreme courts of the Union republics, regional and regional courts.

Cases of treason, espionage, terror and sabotage were subject to consideration by the military collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR and the military tribunals of the districts.

Cases of crimes in railway and military transport should be considered in the Transport and Water Collegiums of the Supreme Court of the USSR, in linear railway and water courts. The Judicial Supervisory Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR was also established. SZ USSR.1934. No. 36.st.284.

On January 23, 1935, a directive from the prosecutor of the USSR was sent to the localities, offering cases of counter-revolution in the absence of “sufficient documentary data for consideration in the courts, as a rule, to be sent for consideration to special meetings at the NKVD of the USSR, which, however, does not exclude the transfer of these cases for consideration in a special collegium, if this is caused by local conditions. It was emphasized that not only a special meeting, but also special boards are suitable for condemnation without evidence.

Military, linear, camp courts and special boards became akin to a special meeting.

All sentences were guilty and extremely severe.

The party system considered the courts to be its appendage, which is obliged to implement its course. "The judiciary, on the one hand,

through judicial repression, and on the other hand, by mobilizing the masses around the trials, they played the role of auxiliary bodies in the cause of social construction, ”wrote Vinokurov, chairman of the USSR Supreme Court. Soviet justice. 1934. No. 13.

If any judge forgot about the role of the court as a party-Chekist system, he was recalled, often followed by a more serious punishment.

Judges were put "in their place" by means of orders. So, on March 20, 1940, a circular of the NKVD of the USSR was issued and it says that the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR ordered the prosecutor's office and the courts to release those arrested in cases conducted by the Chekists, to coordinate with the NKVD in advance. GA RF, f.9401s., op.12, file 80, sheet 100. On October 16, 1940, the NKVD of the USSR, the USSR prosecutor and the People's Commissariat of Justice of the USSR issued an instruction stipulating that in cases investigated by state security agencies, acquittals and court rulings on release from custody in the courtroom are not executed. 33 Ibid., d.81, l.130-132.

Acquittals only began to appear in courts in the 1960s. Prior to that, starting in 1917, criminal liability and the rules of procedure were actually determined by party guidelines.

The massacre was simplified by the content of normative acts, which gave only the name of the crime (for example, rebellion, encroachment on human life), without defining them. Such a statement in normative acts provided unlimited options for discretion and led to terror. Regarding judicial discretion, People's Commissar D. Kursky said: It is enough for the Soviet court to "give a few general signs that will help to figure it out."

A. Vyshinsky's theory was widely used and for many years. He believed that in order to attract punishment, a causal relationship between a person’s actions and an event that occurred, regardless of its subjective intention, is sufficient. In practice, this meant ignoring such elements of guilt as intent, purpose, motive. Such an interpretation opened the way for objective imputation, i.e. application of punishment in the absence of guilt. According to Vyshinsky, the establishment of objective truth can be replaced by the subjective conviction of the investigator, prosecutor, judge, their discretion. These conditions justified arbitrariness, focused on obtaining the main evidence - the consciousness of the accused, on the accusatory bias, placing the burden of proof on the accused, on the denial of the presumption of innocence and other legal principles.

Judicial activity in civil cases was also subjected to simplification and began to bear a distinctly repressive character. The courts unreasonably instituted criminal proceedings in civil cases. Vershinin A.P. cites reports of those years from the journal "Soviet Justice": "The People's Court of the Polsky District in February 1930, in a civil case in an area where there is not even complete collectivization, decided in 24 hours by administrative procedure to deport ten families of dispossessed and confiscate their property, which on another on the same day, Soviet workers began ... to distribute individually ... The Podgoschensky people's court for the exit in a few days from the organized collective farm of 9 middle peasants and the poor decides, on a civil lawsuit of the Krasnoye Znamya collective farm, to seize all property from 9 families without exception and put them, thus, on all four sides. 11 Vershinin A.P. Deformations of judicial protection of civil rights and interests in the late 30s. Soviet state and rights. 1989. No. 8. p. 133.

It was clearly difficult to resist gross violations of the law, since Deputy Chairman of the Moscow Regional Court G. Segala could declare in the press: "If I judge by the civil code, I myself will be judged by the criminal code." 22 Soviet justice. 1930. No. 2, pp. 12-13.

The number of civil cases in courts began to decline.

Our history shows that the fight against crime can be more dangerous than crime itself. All the murderers and bandits during the years of Soviet power did not kill as many innocent people as one single decree of August 7, 1932 carried away. When, six years later, the criminal cases against 1,180,000 collective farmers convicted under this decision were reviewed, the criminal record had to be dropped from 48,000 of them, and for 106,800 the cases had to be stopped altogether.

The result of the campaign against crime: 50% "miscarriages of justice". Only not mistakes, but criminal simplified reprisals.

By the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the situation in the country was the most difficult due to the prosecution of the innocent and the issuance of completely “wild”, unreasonable and illegal sentences. You could get 10 years in prison for picking spikelets in a mowed field, for damaging a bearing on a tractor, for breaking corn in an incompletely harvested area, for two servings of lunch left in the canteen after the distribution of food, and so on.

The Constitution of the USSR of 1936 established: “Persons encroaching on public, socialist property are enemies of the people” (Article 131).

In the described social situation and in a difficult economic situation, the country still had to survive the enemy invasion and the war of 1941-45.

The situation improved somewhat with the adoption in 1959-1961 of the criminal codes of the Union republics.

And yet, the USSR never had an independent and independent judiciary.

A special place in the judicial system is given to the district (city) people's court, since it is closest to the population and considers the bulk (95%) of criminal and civil cases.

The role of the public in the fight against offenses is being raised, comrades' courts are being created and their activities are being activated, and their powers are being expanded. 11 Mikhailovskaya I.B. Commentary on the Regulations on Comrades' Courts of the RSFSR. M.1968.

Attempts are being made to create a business-like working environment in court, to ensure the educational impact of the trial. On February 25, 1967, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR adopts a resolution "On the organization of trials, improving the culture of their conduct and strengthening the educational impact in judicial activities", mandatory for all courts operating on the territory of the Union.

Quite timidly, but already in the 70s, the problem of the Soviet legal state on the scale of nationwide statehood began to be discussed in the legal literature.

These and other changes took place under the vigilant control of the primary party organizations, district, city and regional party bodies. The administrative-repressive system, headed by the Bolshevik Party, then the CPSU, did not let judges out of its vigilant guardianship, because otherwise the court could stop its arbitrariness. Judges had to grasp the will of those in power at a glance. The election of judges, the size of the official salary, the receipt of an apartment, and vouchers depended on the party and administrative authorities.

The proclaimed independence of the judges was understood as a bluff. The chairmen of the courts reported on the work of judges to the party bureaus, at the sessions of the councils, to the population, they were obliged to attend the meetings of the party bureaus. Intervention in the work of the courts, in specific cases, was given at all levels by party committees and individual functionaries. When the command of law enforcement agencies was too brazenly manifested, a shout was heard from the highest party instances in the form of the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On the further strengthening of socialist law and order, strengthening the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens" dated 11/20/1986.

Thus, for a very long period in Russia, certain power functions were carried out through the courts, but the court was not considered as a power and was not singled out as an independent power structure.

It's just that the Russian state of all types sought to realize its essence, to carry out its activities with the help of law and courts, without raising them to official heights and without attaching special significance to them, without establishing a legal status.

Even the law on the status of judges in the USSR, adopted on August 4, 1989, did not free judges and courts from dependence on local and other authorities. The law did not define the relationship between judges and the leading CPSU. Still it was impossible to become a judge without being a member of the CPSU or a candidate member of the CPSU. The submission to the election depended on the party bodies, then the Ministry of Justice and last but not least on the Supreme Court.

In such a situation, there was no need to talk about any independent judicial power, about the subordination of the court to the law. The judges, however, dreamed about it, because in various forums one could hear that the purpose of the activities of the courts is to ensure the rule of law, and not to fight crime, because. the court is not a repressive body.

4. Judiciaryin modernRussia

The dependent position of the court and the desire of the people to gain high protection of their rights and legitimate interests prompted many minds in Russia to realize the need for state restructuring, building a rule of law state, separation of powers, turning court offices into judicial authorities. At the 19th party conference, for the first time in the entire period of existence of Soviet power, the formation of a rule of law state and the need for a judicial and legal reform were recognized as fundamentally important. Our historical past pointed us to this direction.

On June 19, 1990, the declaration “On the State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation” was adopted, proclaiming (Article 13) the reform of state power with the division into three branches. Judicial reform is a key moment in this process. It was necessary to adopt a real-acting Law on the Status of Judges in Russia, to give a material guarantee for the completion of the judicial reform, to revise the legislation of Russia.

The provisions set forth in the “Concept of Judicial Reform in the Russian Federation”, approved by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR in October 1991, can be considered a concentrated expression of judicial reform.

The first step of judicial reform was a change in priorities in the protection of values. If the Soviet law enforcement system focused on protecting the state in the first place, then the new system had to single out an independent carrier (it should be both an individual and a legal entity) of economic interest and protect this interest from any state interference. More specifically, the priority was proclaimed to be the protection of the individual from the arbitrariness of power, and this central idea of ​​judicial reform is in fact the most difficult to implement. Why? Because behind this lies the formation of a rule of law state, and ensuring the rule of law, and the inviolability of fundamental human rights and freedoms, and protecting the interests of the individual, and the mutual responsibility of the state and citizens, and protecting society as a whole from the arbitrariness of power.

The listed tasks and goals prompted the judicial reform to take the next equally important step: to raise the court, which acts as a guarantor of legality and justice, to a height, pulling it out of the stables, assigning it the status of a judiciary, which should play the same role in the state as the conscience of a person . To do this, the court must become independent, free from selfish interests, political sympathies, ideological prejudices.

Then come the components of the judicial reform: improving the quality of justice in the consideration of criminal and civil cases, combating red tape, considering cases in strict accordance with the substantive and procedural law, ensuring the real implementation of the instructions expressed in the acts of the judiciary.

But the tasks listed (functionally for the judiciary, they are far from all listed) can only be solved by an autonomously existing judicial system that implements the numerous functions of the judiciary independently. As can be seen from the previous presentation, all other regimes of power, sooner or later, in one way or another, always built such a hierarchical "ladder", in which each lower "link" was forced to work in a certain mode, set from the center, as a rule, the higher one. In order to avoid the usual "experience" of the past, it is necessary not only to formally consolidate democratic slogans, but also to achieve such a state of society when it will insist on receiving guarantees and will have the economic and social basis of democracy, will be full, not shaken by political, economic and military disasters, i.e. stable, confident in their future.

Finally, on July 26, 1992, the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” was adopted. Its content testified that the supreme power understood that a judge with a party card of any party is dangerous for justice just as if he were free from judicial work while doing business. A complete depoliticization of judges has been declared, and justice has been declared out of politics. It was a step forward.

But the positions did not finally give up.

It has long been noted that as long as there are courts in our country, they experience the same amount of pressure, direct or indirect, from the executive branch, management structures, first of all, the bodies of the Ministry of Justice, which always valuablely keep their finger on the pulse of justice, helping judges not to turn aside from the only correct political line, which, of course, expressed the will of the entire Soviet people. When the line changed, the methods of pressure also changed. The frankly commanding “organizational management of the courts” (Article 18 of the Basic Legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics on the Judiciary of June 25, 1980) under the influence of perestroika processes was forced to give way to “organizational support for the activities of the courts” (Article 22 of the Fundamentals of Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics republics on the judiciary of November 13, 1989), but the essence of the Ministry of Justice guardianship remained the same.

In the Russian law on the status of judges in the adopted first edition, there are two points of contact between the bodies of the Ministry of Justice and the courts: 1) the bodies of justice take measures to create the conditions necessary for judicial activity, its personnel, organizational and resource support (clause 3 of article 9) ; 2) the qualification exam for the position of a judge is taken by an examination commission attached to the body of justice, the personal composition of which is approved by the qualification board of judges (clause 3, article 5).

Seems like a sensible decision. But when the Ministry of Justice or the regional department of justice does not give money for the purchase and sending of court summonses and other correspondence, delays the salaries of judges for several months (and this happened often), does not patch up the roof of the court, etc., then the trials are unlikely to be take place, in any case, the deadlines for the consideration of cases are violated and it turned out that the independence of judges turned it into their dependence. “The ball is ruled by the one who has the money, and I have the money,” the heads of the regional and regional departments of justice used to say at that time.

It turned out that the separation of powers was still a slogan. Nevertheless, the Russian law on the status of judges has further moved judges to the high place they should occupy in society. The law recorded a guarantee of the independence of judges, expressed in the inviolability of their person, home, property, correspondence, and increased the social protection of judges.

Carrying out the state reform and the judiciary - as part of it, the Russians should always remember their own difficult path, which led Russia to the creation and the need to strengthen and increase the authority of the judiciary. With all this, someone else's legal experience and institutions should be kept in front of you to compare and fill with vitality your system of law and legal system. It is impossible to feel comfortable in someone else's dress. Our dress is our economy, culture, traditions, national characteristics and the path traveled by the peoples of Russia, which has provided us with a special historical experience characteristic only of us. Attentive, careful, thoughtful attitude to the creation of our dress for yourself will help to make it so that it does not press anywhere, does not tear, does not sail, taking it in an unnecessary direction, it is simple, convenient for all occasions, i.e. it was just right for a Russian.

As established, there is a mutual conditionality between the nature of state power and stability in society.

From the following chapters it will be possible to learn how the Russian people, taking into account their mentality, the experience of past reforms, the realities in the legal and other spheres of public life, took advantage of the knowledge of the mutual conditionality of state and social phenomena, their characteristics and created the third branch of state power - the judiciary and which she formed.

The former court was not a judiciary. He was engaged in the consideration of specific cases provided for by the norms of civil or criminal law, obediently followed all the instructions of the party apparatus and did not play a serious role in the life of the country.

Real judicial power can arise as a result of the acquisition by the court of qualitatively new functions, by no means reducible only to what used to be called justice.

In the context of the system of checks and balances, the judiciary is characterized not so much by justice (in the traditional sense) as by the legal ability to actively influence the decisions and actions of the legislative and executive authorities, to “balance” them. These powers, when they are granted to the court and used by the court, turn it into a powerful stabilizing force capable of protecting society from destructive social conflicts.

A great job has been done. Its main result is that the judiciary as power has taken place. Where do I come from? First, a solid foundation for the judiciary has been laid. She received unlimited competence to protect the rights of citizens, legal entities, public associations and the state. Let's remember what restrictions existed before in protecting the labor rights of citizens, in appealing against unlawful actions of officials ... now anyone has the opportunity to defend their rights in court. Secondly, and no less important, a mechanism has been created for the implementation of these rights, and responsibility for non-execution of court decisions has been established. The institution of bailiffs and bailiffs-performers was formed. A package of legislative acts, very important for justice, has been adopted. Such as the law on the status of judges, which guarantees their independence, on the judiciary, on magistrates, on the judicial department, on the financing of courts ... The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced 35 draft laws, two of them on changing the norms of the Criminal Procedure and Civil Procedure Codes. one

1 Yamshanov Boris. The judicial mantle is not for everyone. Interview with Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Lebedev. Russian newspaper. November 23, 2000 No. 225 (2589).

In the universities of the country, they always tried to acquaint the student with the activities of the court, therefore, in different years, such academic disciplines as “Judicial system”, “Organization of the court and prosecutor's office”, “Law enforcement agencies”, etc. were taught.

So, what is essentially the judiciary today?

List of used literature

1. SZ USSR - 1934. No. 36. article 284.

2. Collection of legislative and normative acts on repressions and rehabilitation of victims of political repressions. M. 2001. p. 36.

3. Soviet justice. 1934. No. 13.

4. GA RF, f. 9401s., op.12, file 80, sheet 100.

5. Materials of the NKJ. M. 1920. Issue 11 / 12, p. 81, citation from the textbook of Stetsovsky Yu.I., Judicial power. M.1999, p.24.

6. Stetsovsky Yu.I. Judicial branch. Tutorial. M. 2004. p.27.

7. Vershinin A.P. Deformations of judicial protection of civil rights and interests in the late 30s. Soviet state and rights. 1989. No. 8.p.133.

8. Soviet justice. 1930. No. 2, pp. 12-13.

9. Stetsovsky Yu.I. Judicial branch. M. 2005. p.34.

10. Mikhailovskaya I.B. Commentary on the Regulations on Comrades' Courts of the RSFSR. M. 1968.

11. Paleev M.S., Pashin S.A., Savitsky V.M. Law on the status of judges in the Russian Federation. Scientific and practical commentary. The section was written by Savitsky V.M. M. 2005. S. 16-17.

12. Yamshanov Boris. The judicial mantle is not for everyone. Interview with Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Lebedev. Russian newspaper. November 23, 2000 No. 225 (2589).

The creation of an effective state mechanism capable of ensuring the safe existence of society, protecting the rights and freedoms of a person and enabling him to exercise his 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 the safety of society, is law enforcement agencies. The rule of law, which is our country 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 she who should be given the most 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 direction of development of the judicial system.

In writing this thesis, I pursued the following goals:

1. To trace the history of the development of the Russian judicial system from the Kyiv period to the USSR.

2. Describe the judicial system of the Russian Federation.

3. Consider the activities for the development of the judicial system of the Russian Federation, identify the main directions of the 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 domestic 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 the judicial system, otherwise the information about judicial systems would be incomplete, and the essence of the chapter would not be disclosed. The main attention is paid to the "de jure" judicial system, without a detailed consideration of the political, economic and social factors that certainly affect the judicial system of the country. This is due to the fact that the volume and general theme of the work do not allow sufficient space to be allocated for such an extensive topic.

The second chapter is devoted directly to the judicial system of the Russian Federation. It gives a brief description of all the links and instances of the judicial system of the Russian Federation and discusses the main areas of activity of various judicial bodies. At the same time, each judicial instance is considered only in general terms, without a detailed description of the internal structure of the courts and regulatory 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 link of the judicial system and the court.

The link of the judiciary is a set of courts with equal competence and occupying the same position in the judiciary.

The court is a court or its subdivision dealing with the consideration of a case in a certain order. There are courts of first, appeal, cassation and supervisory instances. The courts of first instance hear the case on the merits. Courts of appeal check the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts that have not entered into force, adopting new decisions or leaving old ones in force. Courts of cassation also check the legality and validity of decisions of lower courts that have not entered into force, but they examine evidence in cases limited by law and are not entitled 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 reverse the sentence and send it back for reconsideration to a lower court, or issue a new decision on the case. At the same time, one court, as a rule, has the functions of several instances at once.

The third chapter deals with the development of the judicial system of the Russian Federation. It outlines the main problems of the modern judicial system and activities to address them. The information for this chapter was taken both from specific legal acts and from newspaper articles, from interviews and appeals of officials.

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

1.1 Courts of the Kievan period

The judicial system of Ancient Russia was almost no different from the judicial systems of other ancient states. The court was also not separated from the administration - in every city the princes were at the head of power, and they became the sources of judgment and reprisals. Naturally, the prince personally could not solve all the litigations physically, so he appointed assistants to himself - tiuns and posadniks. The verdict was passed on the basis of customs that had developed even in the tribal system of the Slavs. Russian Pravda, for example, was a collection of customary law. The talion principle was widely spread. Litigation was almost always conducted orally. It was theoretically possible to appeal against the decisions of tiuns and posadniks, 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 put up with an unfair sentence. At the same time, the principles of equality of arms and adversarial litigation were ubiquitous.

The court, 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 given, then they should have been trusted. A man with bruises who came to the prince could accuse anyone of being beaten and the already accused had to provide witnesses who would confirm that it was the beaten one who started the fight. If there were no witnesses, the accused was found guilty.

In the absence of evidence from the litigating parties, the issue was decided by a judicial duel - a "field" or a "ordeal" - a divine test. The winner was considered supported by the gods (later God), and therefore right. The judicial oath was widespread. Under paganism, they swore by Perun, laying down their shield and weapons. After the establishment of Christianity, the oath consisted in kissing the cross and the Gospel while pronouncing words invoking the name of God as evidence of the truth.

Court in ancient Russia was passive. No trial was initiated by his will. Even in the case of a murder, a complaint was required from the plaintiffs - the relatives of the murdered. If the body was unidentified or only human bones were found near the village, then no trial followed. The victim had to start the investigation himself, collect witnesses, evidence and bring the defendant to trial. The owner of the runaway serf himself was looking for him, and the posadnik had only to assist him when he applied for her, when catching an identified serf. Due to the lack of government assistance, many private individuals have sprung up to help people in litigation for a fee.

After the verdict was passed, the court often left the victim himself to restore his right: to receive money, take the debtor to his home as a slave and sell him, inflict physical harm on 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 areas of public life; not all acts opposed by the church were regarded by ordinary law as crimes.

In church courts, the influence of Roman law was significant, since the first metropolitans and bishops were proteges of Byzantium, the 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 the court for the affairs of the bishops themselves.

1.2 Courts of the period of the Moscow State

Since in a specific period a crime was 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 taking certain amounts of fines in their favor. It is not surprising that in this situation the judges were financially interested in handling as many cases as possible, deliberately dragging them out for profit. And in the conditions of feudal fragmentation and the absence of any kind of centralized power, the arbitrariness of judges was not at all limited by anything.

But after a period of feudal fragmentation in Russia, a gradual process of centralization began. Slowly but surely, more and more new lands were included in the structure of 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 specific orders were no longer acceptable due to the change in the nature of power and the growth of crime. The crime began to be considered 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 has also changed. Now his goal was not to compensate for the damage, but to punish the criminal and intimidate other people. Punishments became much more severe, many corporal punishments were introduced, the death penalty became widespread, so according to the lawsuits of 1497 and 1550, it was imposed for murders, horse stealing, major thefts, state crimes and much more (a total of 10 types of crimes were punished by deprivation of life). The adversarial process is gradually losing ground, a new type of legal proceedings, the inquisitorial one, is beginning to be applied. It is characterized by the deprivation of the accused of all rights (including the right to defend himself) and the unification of the functions of a judge, prosecutor and defense counsel in one person. The initiation of a case was formalized by a "letter of summons", which gave the right to detain the accused and bring him to court, or a "letter of the day" (an order to the local authorities to find and seize the accused). The court itself was engaged in collecting evidence, the court conversation turned into an interrogation and a 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.