The highest power in the Russian state remained the imperial, which was enshrined in legislation: the power of government in the entire space of the Russian Empire belongs to the sovereign; it is supreme, autocratic and unlimited, that is, all imperial orders have unconditional legal force. The supreme power was hereditary, and only members of the reigning House of Romanov in accordance with a certain order of succession to the throne. Members of the imperial house had special rights and privileges, and in accordance with the degree of kinship with the emperor, they received family titles that consolidated their hierarchical position.
The organs of higher government controlled countries were the State Council, the Committee of Ministers and His Imperial Majesty's own Chancellery, acting on behalf of and at the behest of the Russian Emperor. The Council of State was established by legislative act of the emperor Alexander I dated January 1, 1810. and was the highest legislative institution of the empire. Its chairman was the emperor himself, who approved the bills approved by the members of the State Council. Structurally, the State Council consisted of a general meeting, five departments, two commissions (for drafting laws and accepting petitions) and a state chancellery. Joint meetings of departments were convened to resolve issues common to state interests.
In the first half of the 19th century, the Governing Senate was gradually transformed into the highest judicial body, consisting of departments headed by chief prosecutors. At the head of the Senate was the Attorney General, who was also the Minister of Justice. The Supreme Consulting and administrative body for the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Most Holy Governing Synod remained, headed by the Chief Prosecutor.
Committee of Ministers as a special government agency, it was created according to the manifesto of September 8, 1802 and consisted of the chairman and directors of the departments of the State Council, ministers, chief executives of individual departments with the rights of ministries and a secretary of state. The current affairs of the ministries and cases that were especially subject to consideration by the Committee were submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers. In addition, materials of audits conducted by the Senate, as well as cases related to the device railways, the institution joint stock companies and some others. The Committee of Ministers prepared conclusions, which were submitted for approval by the emperor and subsequently sent for execution to the relevant state institutions.
An important place in the system higher bodies management was occupied by His Majesty's own chancellery, consisting in the reign of the emperor Nicholas I from six branches. The office, if necessary, promptly connected the emperor with all government agencies. The first department dealt with issues public service and analysis of the reports of ministers and governors, the second department was engaged in the codification of laws, the third department was responsible for ensuring state security, the fourth department was in charge of women's educational institutions and charitable institutions, the fifth - peasant affairs and the sixth - the administration of the Caucasian territories.
Central government bodies of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century
V early XIX century, collegial bodies were replaced by ministries, in which power was transferred to the first most important official responsible to the emperor. In accordance with the manifesto of September 8, 1802, eight ministries were established: the army, the navy, foreign affairs, internal affairs, finance, commerce, justice, public education and, as a ministry, the state treasury. Ministries consisted of departments, which were divided into divisions, which consisted of so-called tables. Ministers were appointed by the emperor and were members of the Committee of Ministers.
They were endowed with great rights and powers in the activities of the ministries they headed. Each minister had an office, a minister's council and a general presence of departments. According to the approved principle of one-man command, the directors of departments were directly subordinate to the minister, the chiefs of the department - to the director of the department, the clerks - only to the head of their department. The Council of the Minister performed an advisory function and consisted of a comrade (deputy) minister, directors of departments and the head of the office. Ministers reported annually to the State Council and the Ministry of Finance.
Local state bodies and institutions of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century
The Russian Empire, as a result of significant territorial acquisitions in the West and in the East, was a large centralized state, with more than 40 provinces and 10 governors general in the administrative-territorial structure. The latter included the capital cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow, as well as territories uniting several provinces on the outskirts of the state. Provinces in administratively were divided into counties, and counties - into volosts.
The governors were appointed by the supreme power, but were in double subordination: they were accountable to the emperor and at the same time were in the civil service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire, from where they received orders and orders. Governors could be civil and military; the latter obeyed the troops of the internal guard stationed on the territory of the province. Governors-general had the right to make personal reports to the emperor and receive instructions from him directly. The reports and reports of the governors, whose territories were part of the General Government, were sent to government offices through the Office of the Governor General.
Under the governors were appointed lieutenant governors as deputies with statutory powers. As a governing body, provincial governments were established locally, consisting of a general presence and an office. The general presence was chaired by the governor. In the general presence, they discussed new legislative acts and orders of the highest authority regarding the execution in the provinces. The office of the board consisted of four departments: the first promulgated laws and published the Gubernskiye vedomosti newspaper, the second was in charge of the police, the third dealt with justice, and the fourth communicated with local financial and economic institutions.
A separate body was the treasury chamber, headed by the vice-governor, which consisted of the governor, his assistant and departments. The economic department managed the state peasants and state property; forestry department - by state forests and forest guards; the treasury department was in charge of the treasuries in the counties; the control department carried out the audit of the treasuries.
The district governing body was the lower zemstvo court, headed by the police captain. The composition of such a court included assessors of the nobility, elected from the district nobility. In 1837, this body began to be called simply the zemstvo court, which included a police chief, an indispensable assessor and two rural assessors from the state peasants. At the zemstvo court, there was an office, which consisted of the executive and investigative tables.
To strengthen administrative control uyezds were divided into camps, at the head of which were appointed police officers appointed by the governor. Deanery boards, headed by mayors, operated in the county towns. The county court was the first instance for minor criminal and civil cases. The courts of second instance at the provincial level were the chambers of the criminal and civil court... In addition, there were provincial conscientious courts, court courts in capital cities, and commercial courts arose in large cities with the development of capitalist relations ..
In 1809, the great principality of Finland, divided into eight provinces. The supreme power belonged to the emperor. The highest authorities in Finland were the Senate and the Seim. The Senate consisted of two departments dealing civil administration and monitoring the administration of justice. The Chairman of the Senate was the Governor-General, to whom the governors were subordinate. The Seimas was a representative body of estates and was convened every five years. With the participation of the Seimas, laws were changed or canceled, new taxes were established.
In 1815, the Russian Empire the kingdom of Poland entered, the supreme power in which belonged to the Russian emperor. Poland was ruled by a governor from the imperial family, under whom there were state and administrative councils. Legislative power was exercised by the Sejm, which met once every two years to discuss bills related to the administration of Poland. Geographically, the Kingdom of Poland was divided into eight voivodships, which in turn were divided into poviets (counties), and the poviets - into gminas (volosts). In the 1830s, the Sejm and the State Council under the governor were abolished, and the Administrative Council became the main body of power and administration. Voivodships were renamed into provinces, and counties into counties.
In the annexed Caucasian territories, an administrative-territorial division was established into provinces and counties, districts and regions, and state institutions were created for management. The supreme power was transferred to the commander-in-chief of the Russian troops in the Caucasus. In the 1840s, governorship was introduced in the Caucasus. Under the governor, a council of military governors and officials appointed by the emperor and an office are established.
In the vast territory of Siberia establish two general governorships, divided into provinces, which in turn were divided into districts. For the Kazakh lands that became part of Russia, a division into districts, volosts and auls was established. The khan's power was abolished, and the local aristocracy (sultans) was involved in the administration of districts and volosts.
On the territory of the Baltic States, there was a general governorship, which consisted of three provinces, for the administration of which local government bodies were created.
Thus, it can be noted that in the first half of the 19th century, a consistent and systematic organization of the civil service took place in the Russian Empire, as a result of which a special type of Russian official was formed, who subsequently actively participated in the implementation of state and legal reforms.
In the Constitution Russian Federation(Article 10) it is determined: "State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial. Bodies of legislative, executive and judicial power are independent."
The independence of the judiciary in Russia is based on the theory of the separation of powers, which was developed in the first half of the 18th century by the French educator C.L. Montesquieu. The theory of separation of powers is a political principle according to which power in a state is divided between independent, separate bodies - parliament, government and courts.
The judiciary is, in accordance with the theory of separation of powers, a system of judicial organs of the state, administering justice.
Judicial power is exercised by special state bodies - courts (Article 11 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The special position of the courts in the state mechanism is predetermined by the tasks they face, responsible duties, the nature of the activity, in the course of which the rights and freedoms of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests various bodies, institutions and organizations.
In order to successfully exercise the judiciary, the law gives the courts all the necessary and sufficient powers. The judicial power in Russia belongs to the courts that form a single judicial system. Its organization is based on the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provides for the procedure for appointing judges of the highest judicial bodies - the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court, as well as judges of federal courts and determines that the judicial system of the Russian Federation is established by the Constitution and the federal law "On Judicial System ".
The judicial power is exercised only by the courts that are part of the judicial system of Russia. The creation of extraordinary courts is not allowed (Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The unity of the judicial system is expressed in the common tasks of all courts to ensure the rule of law, protect the constitutional order, the rights and freedoms of citizens and other social values; the unity of the principles of organization and activity; in the application by the courts of the same substantive and procedural laws; in the unity of the legal status of judges; in instance and other relationships of lower and higher courts; in order to finance the judiciary at the expense of federal budget... The social purpose of courts is to ensure a proper legal regime in all areas of public life. By their tasks, the courts are law enforcement agencies, and they have a leading place among other state bodies, whose activities are aimed at strengthening the rule of law and law and order.
The judiciary is exercised in various legal ways in the following forms:
1. By way of constitutional proceedings, i.e., the resolution of cases on the compliance of the Constitution with federal laws, normative acts of the President, chambers federal assembly and other acts (Article 3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court)
2. By administering justice by the courts general jurisdiction, i.e. Consideration and resolution of civil and criminal cases and cases about administrative offenses- in the forms of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings.
3. By arbitration of disputes arising from civil relations(economic disputes) either from legal relations in the field of management, i.e., Arbitration proceedings.
The judiciary is exercised on the basis of and strictly in accordance with the procedural law. Detailed regulation trial and the exact fulfillment of all procedural requirements by the court guarantees the correct establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the adoption on this basis of a lawful and well-grounded decision. The independence of the judiciary means that the courts act independently, without any leadership and subordination, on their own, having all the necessary powers to carry out their functions, which they are vested with by law. The decisions of the court do not require any approval. A verdict or decision that has entered into legal force has the force of law in a specific case and is binding on everyone throughout the country.
The isolation of the judiciary is as follows. The court occupies a special position in the state mechanism, which is due to the peculiarities of the functions performed, the specifics of the conditions and the order of its activities. Courts are not part of any other system government agencies, they are not organizationally subordinate to anyone.
The exclusivity of the judiciary is expressed in the fact that it is exercised only by the courts that are part of the judicial system of Russia. Each of the forms of legal proceedings is carried out by the appropriate, competent courts. The specifics of the tasks of the three branches of the judicial system (the Constitutional Court, courts of general jurisdiction, arbitration courts) determines the specifics of their organization and activities. Courts of different branches cannot mutually entrust each other with the exercise of their powers. An important feature of the judiciary is the participation of representatives of the people in the administration of justice. The constitutional provision on the right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice (Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) is developed in the judicial and procedural laws(Articles 10, 11, 18, 80-88 of the Law on the Judiciary and Articles 15, 250, 420-466 Criminal - procedural code) It is implemented through participation in the consideration and resolution of court cases of people's assessors, jurors and representatives of public organizations and labor collectives. One of the essential features of the judiciary is the imperious nature of the powers of the court. This is manifested in the fact that the requirements and orders of judges in the exercise of their powers are obligatory for all state bodies, organizations and others without exception. legal entities and citizens. The fulfillment of the court's requirements and the execution of its decisions is ensured by the power of the state.
The organization of the activities of courts is based on the principles of justice. They determine not only the organization itself, the structure of the judiciary - the procedure for the formation of the judiciary, the legal status of judges, the structure and powers of the courts, but also the organization of the very process of administering justice. The principles of justice in the Russian Federation are:
1) Administration of justice only by the court.
2) Administration of justice in strict accordance with the law.
3) Regulations on the procedure for appointing judges.
4) The right of citizens to judicial protection.
5) Equality of citizens before the courts and the law.
6) The independence of judges and their subordination only to the law.
7) The collegiality of the consideration of cases and the sole administration of justice. Participation in the administration of justice by representatives of the people.
8) Open trial of cases in all courts.
9) National language legal proceedings.
10) Equality of parties and adversarial process.
11) Providing the suspect and the accused with the right to defense.
12) Presumption of innocence.
13) Comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of the case.
14) Judicial review
Any court exercises judicial power and justice not in the full composition of its judges. This is how a case can be considered on its merits (at first instance or as a court of first instance): a single judge, a professional judge and two lay assessors, a panel of three professional judges or a jury (Article 10 of the Law "On the Judicial System" and Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws on the judicial system determine which courts are included in the judicial system of Russia. One of the features of the judicial system is its construction in accordance with the national - state structure and administrative - territorial division of the country, as well as in accordance with the organization of the Armed Forces or special "judicial" territories.
Arbitration courts, in accordance with the federal law "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" dated April 5, 1995, identified ten federal arbitration courts, the jurisdiction of which extends to the following federal districts: Volgo - Vyatka, East - Siberian, Far East, West - Siberian, Moscow, Volga, North - West, North - Caucasian, Ural, Central. These federal arbitration courts act as a cassation instance in relation to arbitration courts functioning in these territorial structures as courts of first instance and of appeal.
The project federal law"On the judicial system of the Russian Federation" provides for the creation of federal district courts of general jurisdiction. It is planned to create these courts on the basis of the currently operating courts of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as the Supreme Courts of the republics within the Russian Federation.
Court in Russia in the X-XI centuries, as the oldest form of judicial power
The earliest form of judicial power was the community court, whose members equally had the rights and duties of a litigation Oh. The adversarial nature of the parties persisted for a long time, therefore, the process in Ancient Russia is called adversarial (less often - accusatory). It is characterized by such distinctive features as the relative equality of the parties and their activity in the consideration of the case in the collection of evidence and evidence. At the same time in the X-X1 centuries. the process is being strengthened, where the prince's administration played the leading role: they initiated the process, collected information themselves and passed a sentence, often involving death. The prototype of such a process can be the trial of Princess Olga over the ambassadors of the Drevlyans during the uprising or the trial of princes over the rebels in 1068 and 1113.
The reasons for initiating the process were the complaints of the plaintiffs, the seizure of the offender at the scene of the crime, the fact that the crime was committed. One of the forms of starting the process was the so-called cry: a public announcement of the loss of property and the beginning of the search for the kidnapper (usually at the auction). A three-day period was given for the return of the abducted person, after which the person who was found to have the desired items was considered guilty and had to return the property and prove the legality of its acquisition. It can be assumed that different types of evidence were used: oral, written, witness, evidence. Eyewitnesses of the incident were called vidocqs. There were rumors, which some researchers consider eyewitnesses by ear, others - only free people could be witnesses of the good glory of the accused: they do not add obedience to a slave, since he is not free, says Russkaya Pravda. The equality of the parties in the process dictated the attraction of so many free ones to the testimony.
Only in a minor litigation and out of need it was possible to refer to the purchase. If there were no free ones, then they referred to the boyar's tiun, and not to add up to others (Article 66 of the Extensive Truth).
The Russkaya Pravda provides for a special form of detection of lost property - a set. If, after the call, the missing thing was discovered by a person who declared himself a bona fide acquirer, the set began. The person from whom the thing was purchased was indicated, he, in turn, pointed to another, etc. Whoever could not indicate the source of the acquisition was considered a thief, had to return the thing (value) and pay a fine. Within one territorial unit, the code went to the last person, but if residents of another territory (city) participated in it, it went to a third person who paid an increased compensation and started the code at his place of residence (Articles 35-39 of the Extensive Truth).
Another procedural action - the pursuit of the trail - was the search for the Criminal on the trail. In the case of a murder, the presence of traces of the culprit in any community obliged its members to pay the wild virus or to look for the culprit. When traces were lost on the wastelands and roads, the search stopped (Article 77 of the Extensive Truth).
The norms of Russkaya Pravda, in force in the Russian principalities in the 12th-15th centuries, continued to be used in the judicial process of the period under review. While maintaining the adversarial principles in the judicial process, the role and activity of the state administration increased. The importance of a judicial duel has grown everywhere when it is impossible to find out the caps in other ways. Ordals became a thing of the past because they contradicted the Christian understanding of finding out the truth, the oaths of judgment were deprived of pagan attributes. At the same time, the role of written documents has increased, especially in land disputes and litigation.
For the era that preceded the Russian Truth, the characteristic unification of the rural population was the neighboring community. She grew up in the process of the disintegration of the former family community. Private ownership of land is gradually decomposing the formerly homogeneous mass of communes: along with the wealthy, the poor appear who have lost their plots. Leaving the community, in search of work, they fell into dependence on rich landowners - princes and boyars.
The most ancient Truth (the Court of Yaroslav) preserved traces of the tenacious customs of the tribal system, which had not yet been eradicated in the early feudal state. Art. 1 also recognizes the institution of blood family revenge for murder, but introduces a limitation of the circle of avengers to the closest relatives of the murdered. To kill a husband's husband, then to take revenge on a brother's brother, or sons, or a child's brother, or a sister of sons. But then the prince's law establishes that in the absence of the avenger, the murderer must pay a fine in favor of the prince: if there is no revenge, then 40 hryvnia per head.
The structure of the trial according to Russian Pravda is undeniably adversarial (or accusatory), which is characteristic of the era of early feudalism. Russkaya Pravda described special forms of pre-trial establishment of relations between the victim (future plaintiff, prosecutor) and the alleged defendant (accused). This is the so-called vault and persecution of the trace. The code consisted in the plaintiff's finding of the proper defendant by means of an oath, a code in the close sense and an oath.
True, the existence of a judicial duel in Kievan Rus is denied by many researchers. Their argument, which seems to be very strong, is the absence of mention of the duel in Russian Pravda. But at the same time, the instructions of Arab writers, similar to the one just cited, and the agreement with the Germans, 1229 (Articles 15 and 16), and legal sayings (In the field, two wills, whom God will help) confirm the antiquity of the origin and the strength of the institution judicial duel.
One can only speculate about the reasons for the absence of indications of a duel in Russian Pravda. It is impossible to deny the possibility of some influence, so to speak, of a mechanical order on the text of Pravda on the part of the clergy. The duel, which undoubtedly took place in the life of Kievan Rus in the XI-XII centuries, was to be reflected in modern laws and in their first codification - in the Russian Truth. But then it could disappear from the pages of this collection or almost disappear, as the most disgusting to the spirit of Christianity, by the pen of the first pious scribes of the monument.
Judicial power in Russia in the 17th-18th centuries
In the Cathedral Code of 1649, there was a prescription that justice should be administered justly. However, under the conditions of a feudal state, such a prescription was to a greater extent an empty declaration.
In the development of feudal justice and procedural law for the first half of the 17th century. characterized by the coexistence of adversarial (accusatory) and search (investigative) processes with a clear predominance of the second over the first. The growth of the class struggle and the strengthening of the absolutist features of the monarchy highlighted the search inquisition process, as the most effective remedy suppressing popular uprisings and strengthening the rule of law and the interests of the ruling class. At the same time, there was a certain difference in the spheres of application of both processes. The investigative one clearly dominated political and criminal proceedings, and the adversarial one dominated civil matters. However, in the absence of a sufficiently definite distinction between criminal and civil law, criminal and civil procedure, the specified division of the spheres of application of adversarial and investigative processes should not be absolutized. Usually, disputes over contracts of sale, loan, luggage, as well as insults, malfeasance, murders committed not for the purpose of robbery, including during court proceedings, were considered according to the rules of the indictment process.
Political crimes and the most serious crimes (robbery, robbery, thief and associated murders), as well as serf cases about slaves, peasants, estates and estates were considered using the search process. 2 Judicial law in the Code was a special set of rules governing the organization of the court and process. Even more definitely than in the Sudebniki, there was a differentiation into two forms of process: trial and search.
This is fully reflected in the Code of 1649. It is devoted to the issues of the judicial system and legal proceedings in Chapter X, On the Court, the largest, containing 287 articles. Legal regulations are given in Chapter X not by branches of law, but by objects of offenses. Therefore, in the same article, and sometimes in a group of neighboring articles devoted to the same issue, the norms of substantive and procedural law, both criminal and civil, are linked.
Another important feature of the legal proceedings of that time was the absence of separation of the court from the administrative authorities. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the judicial function was the most important task of the administration; this, presumably, is due to the fact that judicial and procedural issues received in the legislation before the Code and in the Code of detailed regulation.
All judicial bodies of the XVII century. were divided into state church and patrimonial lands. Thus, the system of the judiciary corresponded to the system of organs state power and management. The Code does not apply to the patrimonial court, although it removes from its conduct the cases of thief and robbery and legitimizes some norms of relations between feudal lords and peasants and slaves.
State judicial bodies consisted of three instances: 1) labial, zemstvo institutions, local governors, 2) orders, and 3) the court of the Boyar Duma and the tsar. The court of regimental governors and judges with them over military people during their service and regiments was also a kind of state court. The Code, developing the establishment of the Code of Laws of 1550, proclaimed: The trial of the Tsar Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of all Russia, judge the boyars and the okolnichy and the Duma people and deacons, and every orderly people, and judges ... (X, I). Here, in the form of a listing of ranks and positions, all categories of persons of the state apparatus involved in the proceedings are named. The most important central judicial link were orders, among which there were court orders (court orders, quarter orders) and orders with special jurisdiction (Zemsky, Local, Robber, Kholopiy).
The highest judicial and appellate instance in relation to the orders were the Boyar Duma and the Tsar: And the controversial cases, which in the order why it will not be powerful to decide why, should be included from the orders in the report to the Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, and to his sovereign boyars and henchmen and dummy people (X, 2). This article, perhaps, contains another thought - the orders could be incompetent in considering some cases related to the competence of the tsar and the Boyar Duma. 2 A similar situation is envisaged in relation to the local court in the person of the voivode or the laborer. Not being able to solve the court case, they are obliged to send it to Moscow, in order, and at the same time send assignment notes to the plaintiff and the defendant about their appearance in court. Otherwise, they were charged with swindling, red tape and court fees (X, 130,131).
The Code regulated the procedure for the work of judges, primarily in orders and in the field. There were usually several judges in the orders. Some of the orders were headed by a boyar, or an okolnichy, or a Duma man with three or four people comrades. The Code ordered to solve court cases collegially (all vopche). In the absence of someone due to illness or other good reason, the rest of the judges decided cases on their own (X, 23). Per malignant evasion from appearing in the order for many days, the judge was subjected to punishment, which the sovereign would indicate (X, 24). On Sundays, major church holidays and on days of namesakes, she did not consider any cases in orders, except for the most necessary state affairs (X, 25). The judgment was considered final and could only be reviewed by way of appeal to a higher authority. Therefore, adding any documents to the court list - new testimony, etc. after the trial was not allowed. It was prescribed to the judges after the trial by their fiction in the court case to anyone out of friendship or unfriendliness ... nothing to add or remove ... (X, 21, 22). Following the Code of Law of 1550, the law provided for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice when the judge is tried ... without trickery. If this was confirmed, then in relation to the judge, the penalty that the sovereign indicated was determined, and the case was transferred to all boyars for consideration (X, 10). 1 of the Code allowed the parties to challenge judges on grounds of kinship or bias towards one of the litigants, but not otherwise than before the trial. Such complaints were not taken into account after the trial (X, 3,4).
Judicial clerical work in orders, like any other, ran on clerks and clerks. And the court cases in the orders are written down by the clerk. At the same time, corrections (nielding, scraping) and insertion between the lines were prohibited. The clerk was obliged to put the case on the table for resolution soon. After the court decision, the parties put their hands on the notes. Then the clerk rewrote the case in white, and the clerk, having checked the white copy, affixed it with his signature. A draft copy was also kept for the future for the sake of dispute. It was forbidden to show the court case to the parties and to remove it from the order. If the clerk did this, joining any of the parties, the case was taken away from him and transferred to another clerk (X, II, 13). The clerks were kept in orders and books of records of court cases and collection of court fees with an exact indication of the date of the hearing. The books were sealed with the signatures of the clerks (X, 128, 129). Such proceedings were used for less important criminal and civil cases, which were considered in the order of the indictment, that is, the court, with the active participation of the parties. Civil cases of this kind included lawsuits caused by violation of the terms of agreements of exchange, sale and purchase, loans, luggage-transactions that did not require approval by serfdom.
Ch. X of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the court: the process fell apart into the actual trial and execution, that is, the passing of the verdict, the decision. Everyone could be parties to the process: monks, slaves, minors, people accused of sedition and composition and perjury, as well as children against their parents, cannot be looked for.
The mutual relationship of the parties before the trial (summons) is determined by the contract; but at the conclusion of the agreement the authorities intervene much more decisively than in the ancient Russian process. Relationships are established by means of petition, attached memory and urgent: the first determines the boundaries of the disputed right, the second to which judge to go; the third determines the time of attendance. The contractual relations of the parties were gradually removed by the state: for example, in the era of the Code of Conduct, a challenge through the memory gave way to a challenge through a letter of invitation (Code. X, 100, etc.); the first was held only for Moscow and its immediate environs. The difference between the consequences of a summons through the attached memory and the inviting memory and the inviting letter consisted in the fact that those who did not appear before the court on summons of the first kind were immediately accused without trial; on the contrary, to those who did not appear on the summons of the second kind, but who gave on their own bail, were sent the 2nd and 3rd letters of invitation, and only after that the person who did not appear was accused without trial; if the defendant was not given bail, then the governor took him by force through gunners and criminals. The agreement is sealed by all means by guarantee, the bail can be given by force by order of the authorities (Code. X, 117, 140, 229). Necessary guarantors were neighbors and relatives who constituted a mutual guarantee among themselves, which, however, disappeared in the era of the Code. The purpose of the bail was originally not only to present the defendant to court, but also to secure a claim in case of his failure to appear; but only the first goal remained in the Code.
The parties are free not to appear in person in court; they were replaced by natural representatives, relatives and people (Code of Laws X, Articles 108,109,149,156,157,185; cf. the indicated book of the land of Prik.V; XIII, 3 and 12); only in the absence of such free representatives are allowed, who for the most part were slaves (uk. The consequence of this was the nullity of the rights of attorneys and the easy possibility of restoring resolved cases.
At the court itself, the parties submit wage petitions. The consequence of failure to appear on time for the defendant was the issuance of an extrajudicial letter, that is, the assertion of the right for the plaintiff as if the trial had taken place; the plaintiff's failure to appear led to the termination of the claim. Those who appeared were not supposed to leave the place of trial under the threat of the same consequences; in 1645 an exception was made to this for cases based on acts of serfdom. (cc. book.Zem.Prik., Art. X, 1,3,4; XIII, 4, 5, II; XXXVII, and ХLVII; Code, X, 108, 109, 149, 185; XVI, 59; XVIII , 22-23; XX, III, 119).
The attitude of the parties to the court: the parties have only a negative influence on the composition of the court (through the recusation of judges). In the era of the Code, the passive role of the judge in the process becomes more and more active.
The evidence that was used and taken into account by the court in the adversarial process was diverse testimony (practice required the involvement of at least ten witnesses in the process), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents).
1. Obedience takes the following forms in the Moscow trial:
A) Reference of the guilty, when the party refers to one witness with the condition to submit to the prosecution if the witness testifies against the exiled. The link from the guilty party was of absolute importance for both parties before the era of the judiciary, because then there was still a field to which the opposing party could call a rumor. Its ever-present secondary importance is the accusation of the party that referred to it. The unconditional value of the link, upon the destruction of the field, is recognized in the following cases: when one party refers to the father or mother of the other, when referring to several persons (at least 10) employees (with a claim up to 50 rubles) and the rest (with a claim up to 20 rubles .), if these persons show unanimously (Uk. kn. led. treasury., Art. V, 9; Code. X, 158-159, 160, 176).
B) A general reference to the remainder of the arbitration is a reference by both parties to the same or to the same rumors. However, the law limits the right of the parties to choose third parties: you cannot refer to people who have heard about the fact, but have not seen it; The general link cannot be a person dependent on one of the parties.
C) Adult persons could be witnesses; the wife against the husband, the children against the parents, the slaves against the masters could not be witnesses. A witness from the upper classes was preferred to a witness from the lower: the testimony of one person from the noble class (says Herberstein) means more than the testimony of many people of a low condition (in trans. Anonymous, p. 84). The attendance of a witness is required; with no show good reason the entire claim, damages and duties are recovered (Court of Tsars, Art. 18; ak.jurid., 13).
D) A general search in the grandfathers of ships is allowed in the absence of a common (name) link or link from the guilty (cc. Book. Led. Treasury., V, 1, 3-6; set. Book. Par. App. VI). The general search consisted of questioning devious people (not witnesses) about the identity of the suspect or the accused; they gave an assessment of personality (good or bad person, criminal or not). This was of particular importance when the suspect was recognized as a known dashing person, that is, the most dangerous criminal who systematically committed crimes. A rule was established under which the data of a general search had specific legal consequences. If the majority of the respondents recognized the person as a famous dashing person, then additional evidence was not required. Life imprisonment was applied to him. If, under the same conditions, a qualified majority (two-thirds) expressed this opinion, then the death penalty was applied.
2. The judgments of God that survived in the Moscow period are as follows:
A) The field in the era of the Code of Laws is still in common use; it occurs between the plaintiff and the defendant, the hearing and the party, and between the hearing of one party, when they differ. The parties must have solicitors and guarantors who, along with outsiders, deviate from participation in the battle; the equality of the parties is now observed physically. Renting (Judgment tsar., 13 and 14) is allowed in the same way as in the Pskov court charter. The field is allowed only in personal lawsuits: battle, loan business, fire, murder, robbery, tatba (Judgment 1, 4-7, 69; Judgment tsar., 13-14; uk. Kya. Led. Execution., V, 15). The field disappears imperceptibly at the beginning of the 17th century.
B) Kissing on the cross, that is, the oath of the parties, is allowed in claims exceeding 1 ruble, for adults who have kissed the cross no more than twice in their life. Its auxiliary value with the field is the same as in the ancient process, the eye is gradually replacing the field. The right to take the oath is decided by lot (Uk. Pr. Prik. Servant, court, art. X; Decree of the prince of land prik. X, 6; XII, 12, XXXI, 4; Code: XIV).
C) The lot, in addition to the auxiliary (indicated above) value, in the epoch of the Code of Laws receives independent in matters less than a ruble and in claims on spiritual persons.
3. Written acts in the era of the Code and only serfs have unconditional significance; in the era of the Code, they could be rejected only with a criminal charge of the opposing party in the violent abolition of the act or forgery (st. pr. zem. pr., XXIV; Ulozh., X, 246-247).
Judgment: The strength of judgments. Previously, in the absence of written clerical work in the personal interest of judges in the process, there was an easy opportunity to restore resolved cases. The Code prohibits, on pain of punishment with batogs and payment of wages and red tape, the repetition of a claim, if it is the same claim, against the same person; in claims of real change individuals subjects of rights, for example, bishops and abbots in church estates, landlords and estates in private, is not recognized as a circumstance that allows the restoration of a resolved case. Cases solved by a world deal require a record of this so that they do not start again (Code, X, 154; XV, 1-5). The court decision from the very beginning of the Moscow state was clothed in the form of a right letter.
As for the method of execution of court decisions, all personal claims are directed to the person. Hence the right, the defendant (most often the insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, he was beaten with rods on his bare calves. The number of such procedures should have been equivalent to the amount of debt (for a debt of one hundred rubles, they flogged within a month): here the archaic principle of replacing property liability with personal responsibility is clearly expressed. Pravezh was not just a punishment, it was a measure prompting the defendant to fulfill the obligation (he could find guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt).
Since the time of the Code, the collection has gradually extended to immovable property: to empty estates, from 1656 to empty estates, and from 1685 to all kinds of property (Judgment tsar., Art. 55; mouth. zem. pr., X, 7-8; cc. led. treasury st., III, XII and XVI).
The search, or investigation, was used in the most serious head cases. A special place and attention was given to the crimes that were declared: Word and deed of the sovereign, that is, in which the state interest was affected. The state is the plaintiff on the wanted list; this beginning develops gradually: through the prohibition of lynching (Const. pr. par. app. 66; Code. XXI, 79), imposing on communities the obligation to find criminals and a large general search; the prohibition of peace in criminal cases and the duty of a private person to continue the initiated (criminal) claim (Const. pr. par. app. art. 41: uk. pr. zem. pr., art. IV). In the search, the attitude of the parties before the trial is no longer negotiated: instead of the bailiffs, records, letters of invitation, an order to arrest and bring the accused and letters of order are practiced here, local authorities and neighbors to catch the accused. One of the characteristic differences of Old Russian law is the widespread development of surety in lieu of arrest; usually the guarantors were kinship! enniks and members of the same community (see Judgment 1, Art. 34-36; Ruin. Belgian; Judgment, Tsar., 53,54, 70; Establishment. Important gram. . app.Art. 4 and V). The case in the search process could begin with a statement by the victim, with the discovery of the fact of a crime (red-handed), or with an ordinary slander, not confirmed by the facts of the accusation (language rumor). After that, government agencies took over. The victim submitted an appearance (statement), and the bailiff with the attesting witnesses went to the scene of the incident to conduct an inquiry. The procedural action was a search, that is, the interrogation of all suspects and witnesses.
Own confession and torture. Before the legalization of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, own recognition was not necessary and the last way forensic evidence in the search (mouth. pr. par. pr. v. 9; cf. v. 6), although the compulsion of one's own vocation by torture began already in the first period. From the time of the decree of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, torture became the main means of search and was practiced in various forms (mainly in the form of a rack) until the time of Catherine II.
In ch. XXI Cathedral Code, for the first time regulated such a procedural procedure as torture. The grounds for its application could have been the results of a search, when the testimony was divided: partly in favor of the suspect, partly against him. In the case when the results of the search were favorable for the suspect, he could be bailed, that is, released under the responsibility (personal and property) of his guarantors.
The use of torture was regulated: it could be used no more than three times with a certain break. The testimony given under torture (reservation) had to be cross-checked by other procedural measures(interrogation, oath, search). The testimony of the tried was recorded.
In matters of religious and state crimes torture was applied to all suspects (in the presence of denunciations or slander), regardless of class. As for other matters, here the representatives of the ruling class had privileges. Torture was rarely used against them in these cases and only after the results of a general search were unfavorable for them.
Means of search: a) red-action, which is valid only when the thing is taken from the accused from behind the lock (mouth Beloz Gr., Article 11; mouth book. XXI, 50-57). The ancient unconditional meaning of red-handedness is gradually decreasing. b) A general search is a remnant of the ancient right of communities to participate in court; there is an opinion according to which the search arises from the obligation of the communities to catch the criminals (information about the general search is set out above on page 15 "Forensic evidence").
The verdict and its execution. In the search, indecisive sentences are possible, precisely when the evidence contradicts, and then always in the absence of one's own confession; if there is no own confession, but the search dares the accused, then this latter, instead of the execution that followed him, is imprisoned for life (Const. pr. par. pr. 12); if they approve of the search, then the accused is given on a pure bail with a note that he will not steal or smash in the future (Code XXI, 29, 36, etc.).
Search sentences are carried out by the forces of the state itself. In relation to criminal cases, the law of the state and the punishment of the offender gradually triumphs over the right of private plaintiffs (victims) to remuneration.
Judicial reform of 1864. Its significance and implications for the institution of the judiciary
During the codification period, the judicial system was streamlined, but the order was only on paper. The national outskirts had their own courts, military courts, and even a special court was created for the Decembrists. In the proceedings, the inquisitorial principles passed, there were no clear criteria for initiating a case, the time frame for the consideration of the case (the consideration of the case could turn into endless red tape), and the inequality of the parties. The highest bureaucracy possessed immunity, which they could only lose by decision of the council of ministers and the general meeting of the department. The courts worked ineffectively, only 12% of cases ended in prosecutions. The main idea of the reform is the court is equal, fast, and right. In fact, the changes affected only procedural law. Material, criminal and civil remained unchanged. Initially, the materials on the reform were prepared by the 2nd department of the own royal chancellery. The Prussian version is taken as a basis, i.e. reducing the number of instances, adding an element of competition. There were other provisions of the reform, they caused a resonance in society, moreover, ambiguous. State Secretary Zarubny presided over the reform process, he took the Catholic (Sardinian) and Hungarian versions of the legal proceedings. By the fall of 1865, the statutes were ready and published in the press, to observe the reaction of the population, the reaction was different. In 1864 the statutes were published as laws. The Charters consisted of 4 books: 1. Charter civil proceedings... 2. Charter of criminal proceedings. 3. The establishment of judicial rulings. 4. About punishments imposed by justices of the peace.
Basic ideas: divisions of the court as a branch of government, publicity, irremovability of judges, elimination of the independence of magistrates for insignificant cases, abolition of formal evidence, establishment of a court of cassation, device prosecutorial supervision and the emergence of jurors, the legal profession, notaries, judicial investigators, etc. Judicial system had 2 levels:
1. General courts. All changes have taken place in the general courts. General courts were exempted from resolving minor cases, resolving disputes over real estate.
2. World Justice. They could impose a fine, corporal punishment, but no more. Volost courts stand apart.
Judicial districts were created, district courts were created in them, consisting of 2 chambers, for civil and criminal cases. The jury worked in the criminal divisions. The second instance was the judicial chamber. There were about 10 of them in Russia, they had supervisory functions, were in charge of enforcement proceedings.
Third instance Senate.
Before the reform, the investigation was conducted either by the police or by the court. Now the police have retained the function preliminary inquiry... The forensic investigator was a member of the court, appointed by the Minister of Justice and approved by the emperor, however, like the entire composition of the court. In his work, a forensic investigator is supervised by the prosecutor's office.
The prosecutor is independent from the local administration, subordinate to the Minister of Justice and the Emperor. The prosecutor was necessarily informed about the investigation, after the end of the investigation he could refer the case to the court, or terminate it. When the case came to the court, he acquainted the defendant and the defense lawyer with his own handwritten act.
The legal profession is represented by juries and private attorneys. The jury worked at the trial, private and separate from it. The term lawyer did not exist before. The defendant chose his own lawyer, in a number of cases the presence of a lawyer was mandatory, in the absence of funds, they could choose or appoint a public defender. Judges of general courts. The entire composition was appointed by the emperor. The appointment took place only with their consent and all that (see above). Bailiffs appear. Jurors. The lists of jurors numbered 30 people, each side could reject 6 candidates without reason. The meeting was attended by 12 jurors. This work was free of charge. The jury decided 2 questions:
1.on the validity of the events giving rise to the charge:
2. about the guilt of the defendant.
Interestingly, when the first question was answered in the affirmative, the second did not necessarily follow.
Litigation differed in civil and criminal cases in general and local courts. The criminal procedure was a mixed investigative and adversarial one. The state, represented by the investigator, began criminal prosecution and conducted it secretly, in the interests of the investigation. But those involved in the case could file complaints with the prosecutor or the court. The main stage is the court session. Where the materials of the preliminary investigation were verbally and publicly checked, accusation and defense of rights are equal. The chairman then explained to the jury the circumstances of the case and the laws pertaining to this crime. Explained the legal basis for the strength of evidence in favor of and against the defendant, then the chairman formulated the questions that the jury had to answer. This is a very delicate point, given the legal literacy of the jury, the chairman could formulate questions in different ways.
The civil procedure is adversarial, the court itself was not engaged in the search for evidence, used the provided testimony of witnesses, documents, expertise, opinions of experts, specialists. The formal system of evidence is canceled, now by law. In practice, the application of the bylaws has largely depended on the people who implement the bylaws. The dilemma between internal and external truth. Through the eyes of Tolstoy, the president of the court led an idle life, mostly immoral, bailiff represented by a heavy drinking man.
Judicial reform of 1917
The peculiarities of the breakdown of the previous judicial system and the creation of a new court consisted in the fact that the population in a number of parts of the country, without waiting for directives from above, itself began to liquidate old courts and create new ones. These courts had different names: people's court, proletarian court, revolutionary court, court of public conscience, etc. Summarizing the experience of the judicial government, solving the problem of strengthening the Soviet judicial apparatus, its unification, strengthening the rule of law in the state, the Council of People's Commissars adopts a decree On the court, later called Decree on the Court 1. It was published on November 24, 1917. The initial draft of the decree was drawn up in the NKJ with the active participation of P.I. Knocks. The opinion prevailing in the works on the history of the Soviet court that the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries impeded the adoption of the decree on the court should be rejected as untrue. The draft decree then underwent changes in the process of its discussion in the Council of People's Commissars. This decree abolished the previous courts: district, judicial chambers, the governing senate, military, naval, commercial. The activities of justices of the peace were suspended. The legal profession, prosecutorial supervision, and the institution of judicial investigators were liquidated.
A new judicial system was created: local courts, which operated with a permanent judge and two regular assessors. They had jurisdiction over civil cases with a claim price of up to 3,000 rubles. and criminal with a punishment not exceeding 2 years in prison. To defend the revolution, to fight counter-revolution, workers 'and peasants' revolutionary tribunals were established, consisting of one chairman and six regular assessors. The new courts were created and operated on the following principles: firstly, the electivity of the courts, and secondly, the participation of the population in the administration of justice as assessors. Local judges were to be elected on the basis of direct democratic elections by the population and, prior to their appointment, by local councils. The same Soviets drew up lists of regular assessors and determined the queue of their attendance at the session. Revolutionary tribunals were to be elected by provincial or city councils. Former justices of the peace could be elected as local judges. How was it supposed to organize the preliminary investigation and defense and prosecution at the trial under this decree? He temporarily entrusted the preliminary investigation to local judges, thereby violating the democratic principle of separating the investigation from the court. In order to carry out investigations in cases within the jurisdiction of the revolutionary tribunal, the Soviets set up commissions of inquiry. As prosecutors and defenders in criminal cases, moreover, from the stage of preliminary investigation, and in civil cases as attorneys, all non-defiled citizens of both sexes were admitted. Local courts decided cases in the name of the Russian Republic and were guided in their decisions and sentences by the laws of the overthrown governments in cases if they were not abolished by the revolution and did not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness. All laws that contradict the decrees of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars, as well as programs - at least the RSDLP party and the SR party - were recognized as canceled. The revolutionary tribunals did not refer to the previous legislation in their verdicts.
The Soviet state, local Soviet and party bodies were primarily concerned about the creation of revolutionary tribunals. In a short time, normative acts were issued regulating the organization of the tribunals, procedural order their activities, jurisdiction, as well as the organization and activities of investigative commissions. It should be noted that no such acts have been issued in relation to general courts during this time. The first act on the tribunals was the Guidelines for the organization of revolutionary tribunals, prepared by the NKYu and published in Izvestia of the Central Executive Committee and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies on November 28, 1917.
December 19, 1917 the NKYu instruction to the revolutionary tribunals appeared, signed by the then People's Commissar of Justice, the Left Socialist-Revolutionary I.Z. Steinberg. In both of these acts, the death penalty was absent as a measure of punishment applied by the tribunals. Since December 1917. and until the spring of 1918. there were revolutionary press tribunals consisting of three judges without assessors.
On March 7, 1918, the Court Decree was issued, introducing the District People's Courts to deal with cases beyond the jurisdiction of the local People's Court. They were not created everywhere and worked poorly. In civil cases, the district courts were made up of three permanent members of the court and four lay judges, while sentences in criminal cases were made up of 12 assessors and a presiding permanent member of the court. The creation of the Court of Cassation was supposed. Courts of all instances were allowed to speak in local languages. Preliminary investigation in cases exceeding the jurisdiction of the local court, commissions of inquiry of three, elected by the Soviets, were carried out. Under the Soviets, a collegium of advocates was created to carry out both public accusation and defense.
In May 1918, a Revolutionary Tribunal was created under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to try cases of national importance. In June 1918, the Cassation Department was established under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which considered cassation complaints and protests against the sentences of revolutionary tribunals, correcting their mistakes and ensuring a unified criminal policy of the RSFSR tribunals. With the creation of local courts, the tribunals, in accordance with the SNK decree on the revolutionary tribunals of May 4, 1918, were relieved of many criminal cases and had to focus their attention on the fight against counter-revolutionary crimes. The network of tribunals was sharply reduced. They remained only in large centers: in capitals, provincial cities, large junction stations and industrial centers. At each tribunal, a panel of prosecutors was established, consisting of at least three individuals elected by the Soviets.
Starting with the Decree on the Court 1, two systems of courts were created and operated in the country: the system of general courts and the system of revolutionary tribunals, on a common principled basis. They were distinguished only by their jurisdiction.
It should be noted a very characteristic regularity in the construction of judicial bodies in the first months of Soviet power. The process of building revolutionary tribunals outpaced the process of creating local courts. During the period from November 1917 to May 1918, the entire territory of the RSFSR was covered by a network of tribunals. Where there was Soviet power, they were created in almost all regional and provincial cities, in almost all counties and even in a number of volosts and villages of the RSFSR.
The second pattern was determined by the first. As a result of the fact that the tribunals were created in most of the territory of the republic before local courts, they had to consider cases not only within their jurisdiction, but also all criminal and sometimes even civil cases. As a result, all the tribunals violated the norms of the decree on the court, on the jurisdiction of the tribunals and local courts.
The regularity of the process of creating new judicial bodies at the local level was broad local lawmaking. It was explained by the unusual creative activity of the population involved in social activities by the revolution, who had no experience of state activity, as well as by the untimely receipt of normative acts from the center, in some cases by their incompleteness, the lack of a clear delimitation of the competence of the central and local authorities RSFSR, etc. Only in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 this issue received a definite resolution. Article 49 of the Constitution attributed to the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee the issues of the judiciary and legal proceedings. At the same time, it should be emphasized that republican normative acts played a decisive role in the process of creating new judicial bodies on the ground.
The institution of the judiciary at the present stage
Unfortunately, the judiciary remains a traditionally weak spot in Russia. The principles of the judiciary and legal procedure proclaimed by the Constitution are being implemented with difficulty. And in this case, there is opposition and pressure from other branches of government. Despite the proclaimed legal and social guarantees judges, such as irremovability, immunity, independence, etc. , they very often cannot be fully provided due to the lack of a technical and material base. (So the law on the status of judges, which refers to the provision of a judge within half a year of free housing, very often cannot be implemented due to the lack of such.) According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the judiciary is three-tier. Higher the judiciary are Supreme Court RF, Higher Arbitration court, Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in civil, criminal, administrative and other cases (Art. 126).
The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is the highest judicial body for resolving economic disputes (Article 127).
The Constitutional Court is called upon to exercise control over all state bodies in the Russian Federation. On compliance with the Constitution of the issued normative acts concluded international treaties... Also, the Constitutional Court resolves disputes between federal authorities the state power of Russia and the state power bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (Article 125).
In connection with the admission of Russia to the Council of Europe, the jurisdiction of the European Court now extends to the territory of Russia. It is now the highest judicial body for Russia and its citizens.
The principle of separation of powers in today's Russia is recognized, constitutionally enshrined and, to one degree or another, is applied in the construction and functioning of state institutions. The creation of a normally functioning mechanism of checks and balances is one of the important tasks of Russia.
Of course, according to general rule resulting from the separation of powers, the legislative and executive powers should not replace each other and should not interfere with the implementation of functions reserved for each of them. However, the prevailing trend in a number of countries towards strengthening the executive power is largely due to two factors. First, the complication and acceleration of social life requires quick and prompt decisions on vital issues. The executive branch is more adapted for their adoption. Secondly, the weakness of the executive branch, excessive interference of the parliament in the sphere of government activities inevitably entails government instability and leapfrog, which can lead to serious political complications. This is exactly what happened, for example, with the Fourth Republic in France (1946-1958).
The principle of separation of powers in each country is different. This principle is an integral part of any democratic state. It should be borne in mind that a democracy based on common principles is always diverse and always evolves, leading the country forward, better adapting to political changes in society. And anti-democratic regimes are always the same and lead the country to an inevitable crisis. It seems that judicial reform in Russia, about which legal scholars and practicing lawyers (mainly judicial officials) talk so much, often and floridly, claims to be an endless process. And even to some extent a "thing in itself", because the further, the more it breaks away from direct legal proceedings and punishment. After all, the courts, like 10 years ago, are overwhelmed with cases that have not been considered for years. People who have not yet been proven guilty have been languishing in the pre-trial detention center for years. The prisons are still overcrowded. And so on ... The well-known lawyer Anatoly Kucherena has repeatedly stated that since the judicial system is headed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, headed by the chairman of the court Vyacheslav Lebedev, then it is from him, and not from ordinary judges, who should be asked for slippage and overlaps in its formation and lawyers. The Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is growing in numbers from year to year, but at the same time there is still not even a single regulation determining the procedure for receiving the population and the work of offices. This cannot be attributed to the notorious lack of funding. But against the general background of problems, it is especially noticeable how the highest judicial bodies find the strength and time for internal corporate discussions. The latest and only unfolding one is the struggle of the Supreme Court of Russia with the institution of the so-called "statutory courts" in favor of the planned "administrative" courts, which are called upon, in fact, to free the Supreme Court from the most "delicate" and complex cases. The appearance in the JUDICIAL system of the country (which is already quite confused without Togo) of another category of legal proceedings - statutory courts - only added to the problems and confusion. At the same time, it is obvious that these courts do not perform any serious and irreplaceable functions. It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of the country's regions calmly manage without their charter courts and feel at the same time not at all prejudiced. The institution of the judiciary was first provided for by the 1996 Law "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation". It was assumed that these courts would be created in the regions and deal with disputes and conflicts related to the compliance of the regulations of local authorities with the legislation in force in these territories (for example, the Charter of the region, etc.). NS.). At that time it seemed that with the existing "small sovereignty" of different regions, this would lead to greater rule of law and suppress local arbitrariness. The introduction of a new type of courts was especially lobbied by the Ministry of Justice. It hoped to get in the person of the statutory courts a tool to reason with local authorities. However, even then the Supreme Court of the country and constitutional Court reacted to the novelty with obvious disapproval, since the "statutory" ones clearly created a parallel judiciary in the region. But then, in 1996, the problem of managing the regions and confronting local "arbitrariness" infringing on federal legislation was quite acute. It was useless to argue with the idea of charter courts. But time worked for common sense. It is no coincidence that over all these years statutory courts have appeared only in two regions - in the Sverdlovsk region and in St. Petersburg. Life itself has shown the artificiality and incapacity of the new judicial authority. And now, the chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, Vyacheslav Lebedev, is launching a "big" campaign against the statutory courts. Experts believe that he has a lot of chances to win this fight. However, supporters of statutory courts cannot be disregarded as well. The most influential among them is Nikolai Kropachev, chairman of the St. Petersburg Statutory Court, a former dean of the law faculty of St. Petersburg University and admittedly close to Putin's team. One way or another, but the fight will not be easy. At a time when the country's judicial system is full of such burning, real problems, the best judicial and legal force countries are distracted by a rather abstract struggle. The whole next round of this struggle is the battle of Mr. Lebedev for the introduction of another type of courts. As it became known, the RF Supreme Court recently submitted to the State Duma the draft law “On Federal Administrative Courts in the Russian Federation” that it developed. It turns out that with one hand Lebedev is trying to close unnecessary courts, and with the other at the same time - to start new ones? Not certainly in that way. The fact is that if the statutory courts did not seem to obey the Supreme Court and looked like an unnecessary outgrowth on the law enforcement body of the country, then the introduction of administrative courts, in the opinion of lawyers (for example, the head of the Persona Grata legal advice office Georgy Mokhov), will be for Mr. Lebedev is very helpful. The fact is that these courts are called upon (according to the project) to assume the exclusive right to consider all disputes and claims related to legal acts of the president and the government, legislative bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, etc. In other words, all politically ambiguous and "slippery" the processes in which one can cause displeasure with the powers that be, the Supreme Court is going to withdraw from its competence, so as not to even create for itself the basis of possible political conflicts. It will be extremely difficult for people to seek the truth through the sieve of administrative courts (if they are created). Moreover, the existence of such courts, according to lawyers, simply violates Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which strictly prohibits the creation of extraordinary courts in the country for a special type of legal dispute. True, it is difficult to say whether Mr. Lebedev will succeed in passing through the State Duma a project that violates the Constitution.
1. The concept of judicial reform in the RSFSR: Collection / Ed. B.A. Zolotukhina. M .: Ed. gas. Democrat. choice, 2001.133 p. SB: 2: 01-18 / 83-8; 2: 01-18 / 84-6.
2. Akselbant, D.M. Why is Russian Themis sick? The point of view of a lawyer Attorney: M., 1998, 10 pp. 27-30 On the problems of reform Russian legal proceedings: analytical research.
3. Alekseeva, LB; Lupinskaya, P.A. Judicial reform: results, priorities, prospects: Materials of the conference. M. 1997 351 p.
4. Astapenko M.P. Essays on the history of the Don advocacy / Rost. region Collegium of Advocates. Rostov n / a: Priaz. region, 2000.239 p. SB: 3: 01-2 / 256-3; 3: 01-2 / 257-1.
5. In the wilds of the judicial and legal reform Legality: M., 1993 3. P. 8-14 Concept of the reform of 1991.
6. In the interests of the development of the judicial system and the advancement of judicial reform Ros. justice: M., 1999, 7 pp. 5-7
7. Power is third, but not tertiary Man and the law: M., 1995, 8 pp. 54-60 (On the concept of judicial reform in the Russian Federation).
8. Gutsenko, G. Reform leading back Ros. Federation: M., 1995, 8 pp. 45-47 Critical assessment of judicial reform in the Russian Federation.
9. Dautov, V.Yu. Judicial reform in the Republic of Bashkortostan / Coll. legislate acts of the Presidium of the Verkhov. Council Rep. Bashkortostan; Ufa 1993 275 p.
10. Discussion aspects of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Russian statehood: state and development prospects: M., 1995 pp. 279-302
11. Discussion issues of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Criminal and criminal procedural legislation: Kaliningrad, 1996 pp. 42-47
12. Doroshkov V.V. Guide for Justices of the Peace. Private Prosecution Cases: Monograph. M .: Publishing house NORMA: NORMA-INFRA-M, 2001.271 p. SB: 2: 01-12 / 446-1; 2: 01-12 / 447-X.
13. Zigzags of judicial reform. Legality: M., 1993, 10 pp. 22-24.
14. Investigation of the post-reform situation of the judicial corps of Criminals. Law: M., 1999, 1 S. 47-55
15. Research of the problems of justice in the context of the judicial and legal reform Prosecutor's office and justice in the context of the judicial and legal reform: M., 1997 pp. 59-137
16. How to overcome the crisis of justice Ros. justice: M., 1999, 2 pp. 2-5 Problems of implementation of conceptual provisions of judicial reform.
17. Kolokolov, N.A. Judicial reform: some problems of the judiciary, criminal law and process: Sat. Art. Kursk, 1999.159 p.
18. Constitutional and legal framework for the implementation of the reform of the judicial system in the Russian Federation North Caucasus. jurid. vestn: Rostov n / D, 1998, 1 pp. 29-49
19. The concept of judicial reform and problems of constitutional legality in criminal proceedings. - State and law: M., 1993, 9 S. 102-114
20. Laptev, V.V .; Yakovlev, V.F. Essays on the Russian judicial system Probl. present and future Tyum. scientific. Center SB RAS, Governorate. Acad. Novosibirsk; The science. Sib. enterprise RAS -1998 -191 p.
21. Lebedev V.M. The judiciary in modern Russia: Problems of formation and development / St. Petersburg. state un-t. Legal. fac. Saint Petersburg: Lan, 2001.382 p. SB: 2: 01-13 / 92-4; 2: 01-13 / 93-2.
22. Litovchenko, V.N. Topical issues of judicial and legal reform Orenburg. state agrarian. un-t. Faculty of law; Chief editor and ed. foreword Litovchenko V.N. Orenburg 1996 127 p.
23. At the II All-Russian Congress of Judges and outside the Sov. justice: M., 1993 15 p. 1 (On judicial reform and judicial power)
24. Do not leave ashes Man and the law: M., 1995, 3. S. 35-41. (On the need for judicial reform in the Russian Federation)
25. Some results of the implementation of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Problems of improving the criminal and criminal procedure legislation of Russia: M., 1993, pp. 80-87 On the state of criminal justice and the activities of law enforcement agencies.
26. Difficult steps of judicial reform (Fragment. From a speech at the II All-Russian Congress of Judges) Sov. justice: M., 1993, 18 pp. 2 On the need to expand the competence of the judiciary, improve legal proceedings and the judicial system.
27. An updated concept of judicial reform is needed Human rights activist: M., 1997, 4 pp. 32-40
28. Novichkov V.E. Fundamentals of criminal law futurology. Kursk: Kursk. state tech. un-t, 2000.144 p. SB: 1: 01-3 / 566-2; 1: 01-3 / 567-0.
29. New opportunities for the development of the judicial system in Russia Konst. right: eastern europe. review: M .; Chicago, 1997, 2 pp. 16-23
30. On some problems of judicial reform North Caucasus. jurid. Vestn .: Rostov n / D, 1998, 3 pp. 53-62
31. About new judicial technologies in Russia Vestn. Tyumen. state un-that. History .: Tyumen, 1998 Issue. 1. P. 5-14 On the creation of new forms of legal proceedings, incl. jury and quasi-judicial bodies, for example, the Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes under the President of the Russian Federation.
32. About judicial reform in Russia. - State and law: M., 1992, 6 S. 3-14
33. On the course of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Resolution of the II All-Russian. Congress of Judges of June 30, 1993 Sov. justice: M., 1993, 16 pp. 6-8
34. What should not be forgotten by the authors of the judicial reform Ros. judge: M., 1999, 2 pp. 3-5 Critical analysis of the prospects for updating the legislation on courts of general jurisdiction.
35. Orekhov, R. Judicial reform requires a radical approach Ros. Justice: M., 1998 8.S. 2-4
36. Basic principles of judicial transformations Legality: M., 1994, 5 pp. 47-50 (To the 130th anniversary of the approval of the Judicial Statutes).
37. Will Russia remain an unjudicial land Open policy: M., 1994, 2. P. 29-33 (On the development of the concept of judicial reform in Russia).
38. Pastushenko, S.Yu. Problems of judicial reform Vestn. Saratov. state acad. rights: Saratov, 1997, 4 pp. 3-5.
39. The vicissitudes of fate of judicial reform. Between the past and the future M., 1999 S. 309-323.
40. Problems of judicial and legal reform in Russia: history and modernity Sat. tr. / Samar. humanizes. acad. Samara, 1999 Issue 6: / Editorial board: T.V. Klenova (editor-in-chief) et al. 246 p.
41. Radienko, V. Our sick justice Jurid. bul. entrepreneur: M., 1998, 10 pp. 75-80.
42. Implementation of judicial reform: organizational aspects of the Sov. Justice: M., 1993 3 S. 5-6.
43. Savitsky, V.M .; Larin, A.M .; Petrukhin, I.L .; Topornin, B.N. The formation of the judiciary in the renewing Russia Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences: M. 1997 56 p. : Ser .: New in jurid. Science and Practice / Ed. Topornin B.N. Organization of the judiciary (including the role of the jury), reform of the criminal 161 - (On the Council meeting on March 12, 1997)
44. Judicial reform and principles of legal proceedings Ros. jurid. Journal: Yekaterinburg, 1996, 4 pp. 3-7
45. Formation of an independent and independent judiciary: (State and legal aspect) Theory of law: new ideas: M., 1992 Vol. 2.P. 52-64
46. Judicial power, justice, prosecutor's office Legality: M., 1993, 9 pp. 40-41 Scientific Conference at the Research Institute of Problems of Strengthening Law and Order, Moscow, 1993
47. Judicial reform the way of strengthening federalism Regionology: Saransk, 1995, 2 pp. 8-15
48. Judicial reform a step towards freedom Law: M., 1992, 5 pp. 81-84 Explanation of the Concept of Judicial Reform in the RSFSR, presented by the President of Russia and approved by the Parliament of the Russian Federation on October 24, 1991.
49. Judicial reform in Russia and the jury Vestn. Saratov. state acad. rights: Saratov, 1995, 1 pp. 27-31
50. Judicial reform in Russia: problems of transformation of the Soviet-type justice Konstituts. right: eastern europe. review: M .; Chicago, 1997, 2 pp. 24-30
51. Judicial reform and the effectiveness of the court, prosecutor's office and investigation: 2nd scientific-practical. conf. young scientists, April 24. 1999: Abstracts. speeches of graduate students and applicants / St. Petersburg. jurid. Institute of Gener. Prosecutor's Office Ros. Federation; Under total. ed. V.V. Novika SPb., 1999.116 s
52. Judicial reform and legal professionalism. - State and law: M., 1994, 3 S. 134-136
53. What will happen to the judicial reform? (Regarding Art. AD Boykov Judicial Reform of Acquisition and Calculations). - State and law: M., 1994, 10 S. 138-143
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. 12.12.93 (as amended on 10.02.1996) Rossiyskaya Gazeta 197; December 25, 1993
2. On the protection of constitutional bodies in the Russian Federation. Law of the Russian Federation of 09.10.92 3618-1. Rossiyskaya Gazeta 234; dated October 27, 1992 3. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States on legal cooperation in criminal matters dated June 30, 1995, no. Collection of international agreements on the provision of legal aid... M: 1996
4. Order of the President of the Russian Federation of February 27, 1995. 100-rp On the conclusion of an Agreement on cooperation between the Russian 5. Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 N 1-FKZ On the judicial system of the Russian Federation Published: Russian newspaper N 3, 06.01.97, Courier. Official information weekly (appendix to "РВ") No. 3, February 1997.
Bo in the second half of the 18th century. in the judicial system of the Russian Empire, formed during the reign of Peter I, there were significant changes. The Senate became the highest administrative institution of the country.
It consisted of 6 departments: the first was in charge of public finances and secret office work; the second - supervision over the activities of courts, generalization judicial practice, staffing of the judiciary, review of cases; third, provincial administrative and financial affairs; the fourth - military affairs; the fifth - by the local administration; the sixth - by local judicial authorities. As you can see judicial functions carried out only by the second, sixth and partly third departments. Thus, the competence of the second department included appellate cases coming from the expedition of the Senate, from the Justits- and Votchinna collegiums; cases of the Reketmeister office, as well as cases related to general surveying, and received from the Judicial Order, search expeditions for detective affairs, etc. university administration and appeal. The sixth department dealt with appeals from local courts.
The Prosecutor General, who headed the Senate, had the right to suspend a unanimous or majority decision on a particular case and demand its consideration in the General Meetings of the Senate. In the event that the Attorney General does not
agreed with the decision of the General Assembly of the Senate, then this case was referred directly to the emperor. Moreover, this case was to be presented to the monarch by the attorney general and two senators who disagreed with him1.
Some categories of cases were sent by the Prosecutor General directly to the Emperor, and then they were decided in accordance with his resolution in one of the General Meetings of the Senate. Such cases, first of all, included: 1) cases, for the solution of which the adoption of a new law or clarifications and additions to an already existing normative legal act was required; 2) cases in which the Senate has filed a motion for mitigation of punishment or pardon; 3) cases related to such punishments as deprivation of nobility, honor and life; 4) cases in which the noble origin of the defendants was questioned; 5) cases related to elevation to the nobility and change of official status in the field civil service; 6) cases on awarding titles and change of surnames; 7) cases in which it was necessary to ensure unconditional execution together with other state bodies.
B normative act“Description of the clerical order observed in the Governing Senate ...” in particular, it was noted: “It is allowed to the Senate if there was a Decree on general state affairs, which would be associated with great inconveniences in execution, or on private matters does not agree with other Legislation, or it is not clear to imagine that the Imperial
Majesty; but when, according to such a view, no change is brought about, it remains in its power ”1.
Naturally, the Attorney General was not able to control the work of all departments alone.
Therefore, he had to monitor the timely consideration of the most important cases, based on state interests... These included secret cases, regarding which it was indicated: “Secret cases in the Departments or in the General Assembly, of whatever kind, all depend directly on the Prosecutor General, unless he himself will instruct the Ober Prosecutors to judge any case, then they have only participation in those matters ”2.
The clerical work of the departments of the Senate was carried out by the chancellery, which was directed by the chief prosecutors, who distributed cases between departments or expeditions to prepare them for hearing in the presence of the department. Here, the case was usually decided finally with the full consent of the senators or by a majority vote (simple or 2/3 votes). In difficult cases, the draft decision was sent by the attorney general to the Council of State, and then directly to the emperor. After that, with the resolution of the monarch, he returned to one of the General Meetings of the Senate to make a final decision.
The chief prosecutor of one of the departments included in the General Assembly of the Senate ensured control over the production of cases, over the passage of a verdict or ruling on a case decided in the department, for its compliance with the existing law. If
Description of the clerical order observed in the Governing Senate in the production and decision of civil and criminal cases, both by department and by the General Assembly.-M., 1824.-C. eleven.
A brief set of laws defining the position and rights .. - p. 38.
however, to resolve the case under consideration, a resolution of the emperor was needed or the consent of another state institution was necessary, and the development of a new law or a change to an existing one was required, the chief prosecutor had to turn to the prosecutor general to present the case to the monarch.
Much attention was paid to the design of the cases considered in the Senate. So, in the Decree of December 11, 1767, it was indicated: “So that the power of the judicial decision on every case in the journals is visible, and that the given resolutions subordinates who compose the protocol not only cancel themselves, HO and in the case of forgetting this other reasoning, to believe , and could not be included in the sentences being composed, and even more for justice; in all Public places, not only in the daily journals, but also in the reporting registers, which are marked by the judicial hands, the power of the order to write is precisely and so clear that when writing the verdict it remains for the writer to support only the circumstances of the case and the indicated reasons ”.
In 1775, Catherine II made an attempt to separate the court from the local administration. In the approved by her “Institution for the administration of the provinces All Russian empire”It was envisaged to do this within the framework of the transformation of the system of local self-government. In the administrative-territorial division of Russia, which included 23 provinces, 66 provinces and about 180 counties, it was necessary to carry out the downsizing of the provinces. By the middle of the 90s of the XVIII century. their number has reached fifty. The basis of the NEW administrative-territorial division was the quantitative principle: about 400 thousand people were supposed to live in the territory of the province, and about 30 thousand people in the territory of the county.
In general, the provincial reform of 1775 contributed to the strengthening of the power of the governors and the strengthening of the position of the administrative apparatus at the local level. This was directly facilitated by the creation of special police, punitive bodies and changes in the judicial system.
For the noblemen in the localities were created county zemstvo courts, which consisted of a judge and two assessors. The judges were elected by the nobles of the given county for a three-year term. They were by all means approved by the governor and the upper zemstvo court, which was created in each province and was an appellate instance for uyezd zemstvo courts.
The Upper Zemstvo Court consisted of two departments - for criminal and civil cases. It consisted of a chairman, vice-chairman and ten assessors appointed by the emperor, who were elected for three years by the nobles of the given province. The Upper Zemstvo Court had the right to audit and control the activities of the county courts.
Subordinate to the upper zemstvo court were uyezd courts, noble guardianship and zemstvo courts of his district. In accordance with this hierarchy, cases were sent to it on appeal against decisions of the listed lower judicial bodies, as well as civil and criminal cases, lawsuits, litigations and complaints of nobles and nobles, cases related to estates, wills, inheritance rights and privileges. In the upper zemstvo court, cases related to the commoners were also sent.
It should be emphasized that in all the cases listed above, the upper zemstvo court had the right to take final
decisions only if the price of the claim did not exceed 100 rubles. The rest of the cases were sent to a higher court - the chamber of the civil court, and all criminal cases - to the chamber of the criminal court.
Appropriate requirements were imposed on candidates for judges who were elected to the provincial courts. They, in particular, were set forth in V. Novikov's speech, prepared in 1786 for the meeting of the nobility of the Kaluga province, timed to coincide with the election of judges. V. Novikov emphasized that it depends on the nobility of the province for the election of “the most worthy and capable of keeping the scales of justice in the most accurate observation in their knowledge, experience and good qualities, so as not to sacrifice our peace of mind”.
For city dwellers (bourgeois), city magistrates were created in each county town. The members of these magistrates were elected for three years. The provincial magistrate was the court of appeal for the city magistrates of the province. It consisted of two chairmen and assessors, elected from among the inhabitants of the central city of the province.
For the state peasants, lower punishments were instituted in the counties and upper punishments in the provinces. The appellate instance for the lower punishment was the upper punishment, cases in which were made on a bail.
In addition, in each province, a conscientious court was established, consisting of representatives of estate (chairman and assessors): nobles - for noble affairs, townspeople - for townspeople, peasants - for peasant affairs. He bore the character of a conciliation court, he considered civil cases, cases of crimes of minors and the insane, cases of witchcraft, as well as complaints about illegal detention.
It is important to note that in each province, a provincial chamber of the criminal court and a provincial chamber of the civil court were created, which served as appellate and audit instances for all judicial bodies of the province. The verdicts and decisions of the chambers had to be confirmed by the governors, and the verdicts on the most important cases were sent for approval to the Senate, which remained the highest judicial body of the country.
In the cities of the country, there were also verbal courts, which became widespread in the middle of the 18th century. and who considered mainly the cases of merchants on the recovery of money on bills This, in particular, is evidenced by the materials of the Moscow Verbal Court and the nature of the cases that it decided: I) the case on the recovery of 260 rubles. on a bill from the Moscow merchant Ivanov in favor of Pyotr Shaposhnikov, the watchman of the gun chamber's workshop (dated February 4, 1758); 2) the case for the recovery of 100 rubles. on a bill from the Moscow merchant Lomtev in favor of Lieutenant Tatishchev (dated May 4, 1758); 3) the case for the recovery of 565 rubles. 90 kopecks on a bill from the merchant Semyonov in favor of the Moscow merchant Gresenkov (dated May 6, 1758); 4) the case for the recovery of 600 rubles. from the Moscow merchant Michurin in favor of the collegiate assessor Ivan Markov (dated May 12, 1758); 5) the case for the recovery of 10 rubles. from the peasant Vasilyev in favor of the clerk Mikhaila Veckago (dated May 19, 1758); 6) the case for the recovery of 73 rubles. 33 kopecks from the Moscow public notary Fyodor Naman in favor of the merchant from Uglich Mikhaila Pankov (dated September 10, 1769); 7) the case for the recovery of 200 rubles. from the Moscow-r0 merchant Ivan Glazunov in favor of the merchant Sergei Osipov (dated March 9, 1771) 1 and others.
The Russian judicial system of the second half of the ХѴПІ century. included the systems of non-Russian regions and regions, which had their own characteristics and differences from the general imperial one. So, for example, in Ukraine until 1782 there was a special judicial system, headed by the hetman, and the general judge helped him in administering justice. The hetman considered only important cases, as well as the cases of officials of the Cossack army. The rest of the cases were decided by the colonels and the regimental foreman, from whose jurisdiction minor matters were excluded, for the solution of which the centurions were responsible. The decisions of the hetman and the general judge were appealed to the Little Russian Collegium, which was directly subordinate to the Senate. It should be said that some Ukrainian cities enjoyed the right of self-government on the basis of the Magdeburg Law, having retained it even after becoming part of Russia until 1835.
After the introduction in 1783 on the territory of the Baltic States of the norms of "Institutions for the administration of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" in all counties, the local courts that existed before were retained. Only noblemen and representatives of other estates of the German population were appointed as judges. The highest judicial body there was the Court of Appeal (gofgericht). At that time, there was a judicial system practically on the territory of the entire Baltic region,
"See: RGADA. F.247. Op.1. D.1. L.1-2; D.38. L.1-2; D.39. L.1-2; D.44. L. 1-2; D-52. L. 1-2; D. 14/630. L. 1-7; D. 115/1158. L. 1-6.
created on the basis of Swedish law. The local courts of the Baltic were subordinate to the Collegium of Livonia, Estland and Finland, which was responsible to the Senate.
In the territories where Muslims lived, the highest court was the crown court, and the crown judges considered only the most important criminal cases, and also resolved disputes between the Russian and the local population. On less significant criminal and civil cases, decisions were made by Bashkir and Tatar foremen and judges - qadis and biys. It is important to note that all cases in these territories were decided on the basis of Sharia law. The disaffected could appeal them to a higher court - the crown court.
After the two Kazakh zhuzes entered the Russian Empire, their highest administrative and judicial body was in Orenburg as part of the border court, which included tsarist officials and representatives of the Kazakh nobility. In addition, the consideration of civil and criminal cases also dealt with reprisals, which consisted of clan elders.
During the period under study, a special place in the judicial system of Russia was occupied by the issue of justice in relation to the serfs. The landowner alone had the right to judge the peasants, with the exception of especially grave crimes. The landowner in his estates could create the so-called local management systems and courts: I) a clerk (bailiff) or headman appointed by the landowner; 2) the body of secular self-government - the headman and the kisselovniki, elected by the peasants.
By the middle of the 90s of the XVIII century. the judicial system of the Russian Empire included four instances and looked as follows: 1) Lower reprisal (for single-courtiers and free peasants), Magistrate or Town Hall (for city dwellers), Uyezd court (for noblemen), Lower court court (for commoners in St. Petersburg and Moscow); 2) Upper punishment (for single courtyards and free peasants), Provincial magistrate (for city residents), Upper Zemstvo court (for noblemen), Upper court court (for commoners in St. Petersburg and Moscow); 3) Chambers of criminal and civil courts; 4) Governing Senate.
In general, as a result of the transformation of the judicial system in accordance with the "Institutions for the administration of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" in 1775 in Russia, an attempt was made more consistently than in the previous period to implement the principle of separation of the judicial power from the administrative one. This was ensured, first of all, by the creation of parallel existing local judicial and administrative authorities. However, the governor's retained right to supervise the court with the possibility of suspending court decisions significantly limited the independence of the local judiciary.
Uniform judicial bodies were introduced in the provinces, which made it possible to organize general order office work and a fairly clear hierarchy of courts. However, there was still the possibility of administering justice by administrative bodies of government. The activities of the judicial institutions of Russia during this period were characterized, as noted by N.N. Efremov, “red tape, bribery, low mental and moral level of judges, aimless cruelty of punitive measures, lack of strict legality in the administration of justice, which was largely determined by the existing organization of the court”. "
Reforms 1775-1785 gt. contributed to the consolidation of the estate judicial system. The new judicial bodies created during this period reflected primarily the interests of the nobles, since they had the right to exercise general leadership of the courts and to approve the heads of local judicial institutions. “The dominance of the noble element in the provinces and counties was compensated only to a small extent,” believes T.JI. Migunov, - by "city" self-government both by the social and administrative activity of the order of public contempt, and by the social and judicial actions of orphaned city courts ”.
In general, the transformation of the last quarter of the XVIlI century. contributed to the continuation of modernization processes in the Russian Empire. The legislative policy of the tsarist government was determined by the dominance in lawmaking of the period of enlightened absolutism of ideas the rule of law and civil society, the choice of ways to implement which was limited by the political interests of the autocracy and was conditioned by the ethnic, legal and cultural diversity of the peoples of Russia. The main place in the law enforcement and law enforcement mechanism of the empire was assigned to the estate institutions, which were for the time being a means of regulating social relations. As a result of the reform of local governments in
country were created general courts three largest categories of the population and the beginning of the formation of regional judicial subsystems, which reflected the peculiarities of the local estate delimitation, was laid. The limits of jurisdiction of local courts depended on legal status social groups, which, undoubtedly, was reflected in the personal composition of judges.
The provincial reform of 1775, reflecting in general the proposals and wishes of the nobility, contributed to the improvement of the organs local government, including the judiciary. At the same time, it should be emphasized that the activities of local courts continued to be characterized by red tape, bribery, low educational level of judges, often unjustified cruelty of punitive measures, insufficient observance of the rule of law in the administration of justice, etc. “In the institutions established under Catherine II, these new beginnings received more quickly, - as noted by A.A. Kiesewetger, - a principled recognition rather than a practical implementation ”.
3. Judicial system and legal proceedings in Russia in the first half of the XDC century.
The judicial system of Russia, created during the reign of Catherine II, was introduced at the end of the 18th - beginning of the XEX centuries. some changes. In particular, the upper zemstvo courts were abolished, which considered cases of nobles, upper and lower punishments, the jurisdiction of which extended to state peasants and one-courtiers, as well as provincial magistrates, who decided cases of urban residents.
In 1802, the Ministry of Justice was established, which was responsible for staffing and organizing new judicial bodies, as well as overseeing their activities. However, the lack of clear regulation of the relationship between the Senate and the Ministry of Justice in Russian legislation often led to disagreements on the procedure and merits of the cases under consideration. The Minister of Justice, as Attorney General, was still and the head of the Senate Chancellery. So, for example, if the senators of the department did not reach a decision on any case, then its consideration was transferred to the general meeting of the departments of the Senate, where for a positive decision of the case it was necessary to collect at least two-thirds of the votes. If the decision on this case did not receive the required number of votes or the Minister of Justice was against, then the opinion of the minority was to be discussed at a meeting of the council of chief prosecutors. The decision taken by this council was submitted for approval by the senators of the department. If it was impossible to reach an agreement, the case was sent to the State Council, and then to the emperor.
The most important functions of the Ministry of Justice in accordance with the Manifesto “On the General Establishment of Ministries” were: managing the country's judicial system and exercising general supervision over the activities of the judiciary, as well as providing security land rights nobility, through the supervision of judicial-boundary cases.
As you can see, the main direction in the work of the Ministry of Justice in the first quarter of the XlX century. was the supervision of the activities of the judiciary in the country. On August 5, 1816, in a letter to the Minister of Justice D.P. To Troshchinsky, Emperor Alexander I outlined the crux of his powers, which consisted in strengthening "supervision, so that affairs, both in the Governing Senate and in all places subordinate to him, had the most successful course", and "laws and decrees were invariably executed everywhere ..." ... Concerning the problem of red tape and bribery inherent in Russian courts, Alexander I emphasized that "those who are exposed in this heinous vice should be intolerant in the service and persecuted with all the severity of the laws."
Transformations of the highest bodies of state power also affected the structure of the Senate. So, on January 27, 1805, the fifth (criminal) and sixth (criminal) departments were formed, which were the highest court of appeal in criminal cases, as well as the seventh (appeal) and eighth (appeal) departments, which were the highest Court of Appeal for civil cases. From March 16, 1808 r. the fifth department began to be subdivided into two departments: the 1st department was in charge of cases of unrest of peasants, murders, robberies, robberies, arsonists, apostasy, sectarians and schismatics, crimes against state power; the competence of the 2nd department included cases of malfeasance, about embezzlement, about serfs convicted of escaping; about logging, smuggling, evading recruitment, complaints from defendants, protests from prosecutors, and governors' disagreement with decisions of judicial chambers.
The sixth (criminal) department, located in Moscow, considered cases in the following provinces: Vologda, Bo-Ronezh, Vyatka, Georgian-Imereti (since April 19, 1811);
regions: Bessarabian, Caucasian, Caspian and the land of the Don Army (from September 28, 1820).
The seventh (appeal) and eighth (appellate) departments were also located in Moscow and during the study period considered cases in the order of priority without differentiating them by type or by province. The cases under consideration mainly concerned the cruel treatment of landowners with peasants, the sale of serfs, illegal enslavement of peasants, the grant of land and peasants, land disputes between landowners, peasants and the church, as well as sales, mortgages, division of movable and immovable property, rights to own factories and factories.
The Council of State, established on January 1, 1810, became an additional court of law, since its department of civil and spiritual affairs had the right to consider civil and criminal cases on appeal.
In the provinces, there were all-estate judicial bodies - provincial chambers for criminal and civil cases. They considered cases of malfeasance, arson, etc. as a court of first instance, and were also an appellate instance for county and city courts. So, by the chambers for criminal cases “in 1847 it was convicted,” as V.I. Vlasov, - 29123 people, of whom 627 persons (2.2%) were sentenced to hard labor and 4604 (15.8%) were sentenced to imprisonment and arrest; in 1849, respectively, 28690, 850 (3%), 3502 (12.2%); in 1850 - 28389, 646 (2.3%), 3083 (10.9%); in 1851 - 35132, 727 (2.1%), 3373 (9.6%) "".
In each province there were courts of conscience, created during the reign of Catherine II. The conscientious court consisted of a judge and 6 assessors, elected by 2 representatives from the noble, urban and rural estates. These courts considered cases of crimes of minors and the insane, property disputes between relatives, as well as other civil cases, if the parties agreed to resolve the dispute in a conscientious court. The activities of the courts of conscience were of a conciliatory nature. A party dissatisfied with the decision of a conscientious court had the right to appeal to a regular court.
Also preserved are the lower estate district courts, which tried the cases of noblemen and state peasants. City magistrates and town halls decided the affairs of merchants and petty bourgeois.
In all major cities, and sometimes in every part of the city, there were commercial verbal courts. They dealt with disputes between traders over bills of exchange, bills, etc. The city magistrates were the appeal and revision instance for the verbal courts.
It should be noted that in the judicial system of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the XDC century. a special court was created - a commercial one, under which the prosecutor was. It was composed of a chairman, four members and one consultant (rapporteur or secretary). Moreover, the members of the court were elected by merchants from their class.
The jurisdiction of the commercial court extended to merchant transactions, claims of city and nonresident merchants, as well as to representatives of other estates that concerned exclusively commercial matters. The court had the right to make a final decision in cases where the cost of the claim was less than 500 rubles, cases with a higher claim value were to be considered on appeal in the Senate. Commercial courts were created, first of all, in coastal cities, and then began to form in other places where trade developed widely.
In addition, in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vilno and Arkhangelsk, court courts functioned, considering cases of nonresident citizens, as well as military personnel who found themselves at a distance from the location of their military units.
Cases related to minor property disputes and misdemeanors were considered by the volost and rural reprisals created in 1838. There were also departmental courts: military, naval, spiritual, forestry, mountain, etc.
Thus, in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century. the court was not separated from the administration, the principle of estate was preserved, and judicial functions were performed not only by the courts, but also by the local administration. Thus, the decisions of the provincial chambers in criminal and civil cases still had to be approved by the governors, and some police officials (governors, private bailiffs, quarter overseers and bailiffs) had the right to consider cases of theft, the amount of the claim of which did not exceed 20 rubles.
The trial in the first half of the XK century. characterized by the following features: 1) court sessions were held in secret, behind closed doors; 2) not only outsiders, but also parties and witnesses could not be present at the trial; 3) the cases were considered by the court on the basis of written testimony alone; 4) oral testimony at the trial was not allowed.
The court made judgments and decisions only on the basis of the written materials of the investigation. The defendant's own confession continued to be the most important proof of his guilt.
At the same time, torture was widely used. The verdict was not based on the conviction of the judges, but on formal considerations, depending on how many witnesses “for” and “against”. If the court did not have the necessary evidence of the guilt of the accused, then the case was dropped. However, in accordance with the verdict, this person was left “in suspicion” for life, which significantly complicated their position in society. “Rural societies were often expelled,” notes C.A. Egorov, - the members of the permanent residence in Siberia discredited by such a court decision ”.
The opportunity to appeal against the verdict or the court decision was significantly hampered, since this required large funds. Therefore, the complaints were pending in the courts for many years.
The secret nature of the proceedings provided a wide scope for various abuses, unfounded accusations, bribes, etc.
As for the development of the country's judicial system as a whole, it practically remained in the form in which it took shape at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 10th century. This is especially clearly reflected in the localities, at the level of counties and provinces. The heads of the administrative bodies in the province were governors, who relied in their activities on the provincial government.
In accordance with the law of 1845, the provincial government consisted of a general presence and an office. The general presence was chaired by the governor, and it itself included the vice-governor, advisers and assessors. The gubernias were headed by
"Egorov C.A. History domestic state and law, IX - first half of XD (century. Experience of problem presentation. - Yaroslavl, 2000. - S. 328.
nators, and on the outskirts of the country, a governor-general was usually appointed at the head of several provinces.
In the early 30s of the XDC in. terms of tenure in elective positions in judicial institutions were doubled. “The law of 1831 introduced for elective offices, - writes
V. Bochkarev, - in the judicial department, a six-year term, instead of the previous three-year, and at the same time equated elective service with government service ”1. In addition, the Manifesto of December 6, 1831 introduced an electoral system for the chairmen of the provincial court chambers, who had previously been appointed to these positions. At the same time, it was emphasized that they should have been elected by all means by the nobility.
Obviously, by such measures the tsarist government tried to attract prominent representatives of the local nobility to work in the governing bodies. However, as V. Bochkarev points out: “Representatives of the small local nobility mostly fell into judicial positions, nevertheless, what was larger and more significant in the province, either did not serve at all, or tried to make a brilliant career in the capital, in higher government institutions”.
In the county, as before, the lower zemstvo court functioned, which was headed by the head of the county, the police captain. True, in 1837 the local judicial system was slightly transformed. The lower zemstvo court now included a police chief, an indispensable assessor and 2 rural assessors.
The head of the volosts were volost boards (volost head, assessors and a clerk), the camps were led by bailiffs.
Speaking about the educational level of judges, V. Bochkarev pointed out that “the law did not establish an educational qualification for judges, and every nobleman with any rank, or a merchant assigned to a guild, could be elected to any position in local judicial institutions .. . ”, As a result of which“ in the courts of first instance, the illiterate or semi-literate made up the majority ”. Even the Senate was not always staffed with sufficiently educated officials. So, “in 1841, for example, in seven St. Petersburg departments of the Senate and two general meetings who had separate offices, there were only 6 people with higher education ”.
However, "the main ulcer that eaten away the old courts was," emphasizes V. Bochkarev, "universal bribery, of which absolutely everyone was guilty, from small order bipods to strong high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Justice." 0 the widespread spread of bribery in judicial institutions is eloquently evidenced by the fact that the Minister of Justice himself, Count Panin, compiling a row entry in favor of his daughter in the St. Topilskiy, 100 rubles to the overseer who was in charge of this case ”4.
Red tape was at that time characteristic of almost all judicial institutions, including the Senate. “Cases sometimes stalled in one first instance for 10-15 years, and according to the well-known case of the Shidlovskys, - as V. Bochkarev points out, - within seven years the Senate issued up to 12 contradictory decrees; and only after 20 years was the formal question of the procedure for the direction of this case resolved; in essence, it has never been understood during all this time. "
In general, “in the old courts, the chancellery was decisively dominant in everything,” as V. Bochkarev points out, and the secretary, as an expert in paper-making, played a leading role in it. The assessors were mere extras, and in most cases they were simply absent during the analysis of certain cases ”.
A characteristic feature of the policy of Nicholas I in the field of the state structure of Russia was that his own Imperial Highness Chancellery, in fact, in its importance was higher than the entire state administration apparatus. Moreover, a small group of senior officials from the closest circle of the emperor made decisions on the most important issues of foreign and domestic policy. During the reign of Nicholas I, six branches were formed in the structure of this chancellery, which, in terms of their functional purpose, practically did not differ from the ministries operating at that time. A special place in the activities of the office was occupied by the II department, which carried out a lot of work to complete the codification Russian legislation and participated in the preparation of various projects to improve the management apparatus, including the country's judicial institutions.
In general, the judicial system of the first half of the XEX's. differed little from the structure of the judicial system of the last quarter of the 17th century. It included special courts for nobles, townspeople, peasants, special commercial, conscientious, boundary, etc. In addition, judicial functions were performed by such administrative bodies as provincial boards, police departments, etc. In particular, “by the end of the first half of the 19th century. was developed in detail, - notes L.I. Zemtsov, - the structure of peasant self-government (on the example of state-owned villages), part of which were judicial functions, including with the right to court for minor offenses in the peasant environment ”.
Thus, one can fully agree with the statement
N.N. Efremova that the changes in the judicial system of Russia “were carried out mainly in the following areas: 1) limiting the number of instances; 2) changing the rules of office work in order to speed it up; 3) declaring the limitation of the administration's interference in the administration of justice; 4) increasing the educational level of the staff of the judicial department ”. But even these minor changes were often carried out slowly and not efficiently enough, without affecting the very structure and principles of the organization of the judicial system in Russia. Describing the red tape and excessive slowness in the course of the consideration of cases, S.V. Yushkov pointed out that “in 1831, 120 thousand unsolved cases were found in the St. Petersburg provincial institutions, among which 5361 de. lo related to malfeasance ”.
In general, judicial institutions in Russia in the first half of the XDC century. were under the strong influence of the administrative authorities. The police carried out the investigation and the execution of the sentence. She also often assumed judicial functions in minor cases. The consideration of cases in court took place behind closed doors. In addition, widespread bribery and red tape flourished in judicial institutions. All this testified to a serious crisis of the judicial system in Russia, which practically did not undergo significant changes since the "Institutions for the management of the provinces of the All-Russian Empire" in 1775, and the urgent need to reform it.
Topic 7. The state and law of Russia during the period of the disintegration of the serf system and the growth of capitalist relations (I half of the 19th century)
Test No. 1
1. Which administrative body of the Russian Empire was the highest court?
B) the justic college
C) Ministry of Justice
2. What did MM offer? Speransky in his reform project?
A) introduce the system of constitutional monarchy
C) introduce the system of a constitutional republic
3. What system should have been established in Russia according to the project of P.I. Pestel?
A) constitutional monarchy
B) democratic republic
C) autocratic monarchy
4. What transformations were prepared by the Decembrists in the event of the victory of the uprising
A) the transfer of all land to the peasants for free use, the resignation of all ministers, the dispersal of the Senate
B) the transfer of all power to the peasant communities, the abolition of the monarchy
C) the proclamation of democratic freedoms through the Senate, the abolition of serfdom, the convocation of the Constituent Assembly
5. What category of the population of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Did you belong to the semi-privileged estates?
A) personal nobles
B) philistines
C) Cossacks
6. What form of government should Russia have adopted according to N. Muravyov's project?
A) democratic republic
B) autocratic monarchy
C) constitutional monarchy
7. What administrative units consisted of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century?
A) governorship - voivodeship - county
B) voivodeship - province - district
C) general government - governorship - county
8. In what year was the decree on free farmers issued?
C) 1812
9. What is the authority conceived by MM? Speransky, was never discovered in Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
A) Council of Ministers
B) Council of State
A) one-yard palaces
B) Cossacks
C) clergy
Test number 2
1. What did M.M. Speransky?
A) provide peasants with the right to acquire movable and real estate in ownership
B) free the peasants without land
C) give the right to the peasants to leave the landlords
2. What category of the population of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Did you belong to the tax-paying estates?
A) state peasants
B) Cossacks
C) one-yard palaces
3. By what principle was the activity of the central executive authorities based on the ministerial reform of Alexander I?
A) on the basis of collegiality
B) according to the principle of one-man management
C) according to the principle of democratic centralism
4. Which agency was to be responsible for internal security under the Manifesto for the "General Establishment of Ministries" (1811)?
A) Security department
B) Ministry of Police
C) Police Department under the Ministry of the Interior
5. According to the ministerial reform of Alexander I
A) ministers were appointed by the Council of State and were responsible only to it
B) ministers were elected by employees of the ministry and were responsible only to them
C) ministers were appointed by the emperor and were responsible only to him
6. Decree on free farmers of 1803:
A) granted personal freedom to state peasants
B) consolidated the privileges of peasants, one-yard owners
C) allowed the landowners to release their peasants at will for a ransom
7. What were the results of the administrative reforms of Alexander I?
A) the creation of a ministerial administration
B) creating a system local government- zemstvo
C) creation of His Majesty's Own Chancellery
8. Who owned the supreme legislative, executive and judicial power in the country?
A) to the emperor
B) the State Council
C) the Senate
9. In what years was the ministerial reform carried out under Alexander I?
A) in 1810-1811
B) in 1807-1810
B) in 1809-1822
10. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestela suggested:
A) division of land into communal and private, equality of all citizens before the law
B) the transfer of all land to state ownership while maintaining landlord ownership
C) the transfer of all the land to the peasants
Test number 3
1. What functions did the Council of State, created in 1810, receive?
A) legislative
B) executive
A) clergy
B) philistines
C) Cossacks
3. Which administrative body was the highest in Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
A) Committee of Ministers
B) Council of State
C) Senate
4. When was the Council of State established?
C) in 1815
5. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestela suggested that the highest the legislature authorities in Russia will:
A) parliament
B) folk veche
C) Zemsky Sobor
6. What is the "Tacit Committee"?
A) secret police
B) censorship committee
C) the close circle of Alexander I, which influenced his policy
7. The decree of December 12 (24), 1801 allowed persons of free fortunes (merchants, bourgeois, state peasants) to acquire:
A) land without serfs
B) land and serfs
C) state manufactories
8. What did the project of the peasant reform of 1819, the Minister of Finance D.A. Guriev?
A) the destruction of the community and the creation of farms in Russia
B) preservation of landlord ownership
C) emancipation of peasants without land
9. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestela assumed that the executive body of power in Russia would be:
A) folk veche
B) sovereign duma
C) noble assembly
10. According to the draft of the first Russian constitution of 1820, prepared by N.N. Novosiltsev, Russia turned into:
A) to a parliamentary republic
B) an unlimited monarchy
C) to a constitutional monarchy
Test No. 4
1. In 1837-1841. P.D. Kiselev carried out an administrative reform, as a result of which the state peasants:
A) became legally free landowners
B) fell under the rule of landlords
C) passed into the category of monastery peasants
2. Ober-Prosecutor of the Synod:
A) was appointed by the king
B) was elected by members of the spiritual college
C) secretly elected at the local Council of Bishops
3. Which peasants were affected by the reform carried out by P.D. Kiselev?
A) private
B) peasants of Western Russian provinces
C) state
4. Who carried out the codification of Russian legislation in the 1830s?
A) M.M. Speransky
B) V.P. Kochubey
C) A.Kh. Benckendorf
5. What body of political police was created under Nicholas I?
A) III Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery
B) Secret order
C) Secret Chancery
6. Who during the reign of Nicholas I received an advantage in the system in the administrative bodies of power?
A) Council of State and Senate
B) Committee of Ministers, ministries
C) The Emperor's own office
7.In 1826 the following was created:
A) Indispensable advice
B) Council at the highest court
C) His Majesty's own office
8. In what year was the Council of State established?
B) in 1801
9. Normative legal act adopted in 1802:
A) "On the establishment of ministries"
B) provincial reform
C) Charter of the Deanery
10. At the beginning of the XIX century. The role of the highest judicial institution was performed by:
A) Council of State
C) Committee of Ministers
Test number 5
1. The primary task in Russia in the first half of the nineteenth century. became codification:
A) laws on the judiciary and legal proceedings
B) local laws
C) criminal laws
2. Who, continuing the work of his predecessors on the codification of Russian law, began to insist on the creation of a code of laws, and not a new code?
A) Nicholas I
B) Paul I
C) Catherine II
3. In Art. 1 of the Basic Laws the idea was formulated:
A) the autocratic power of the Russian Emperor
B) unlimited power of the Senate
C) infringement of the rights of local governments
4. The main administrative body in the province was:
A) police captain
B) foreman
C) the governor
5. Legislation distinguished between supreme and subordinate administration. Which governing body was the Council of State?
A) the supreme
B) subordinates
B) isolated
6. What functions were performed by the Second Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery?
A) political investigation
B) management of women's schools and charitable institutions
C) codification of legislation
7. When was the new Criminal Code "Criminal Code and Correctional Penalties" adopted?
C) 1829
8. Who spent in 1837-1841. reform in relation to state peasants?
A) A.A. Arakcheev
B) P.D. Kiselev
C) M.M. Speransky
9. To what estates did the clergy belong in Russia?
A) to the privileged
B) to the semi-privileged
B) to tax
10. The code of laws was to consist of:
A) 10 sections
B) 8 sections
B) 2 sections
Topic 8. The state and law of Russia in the period of the establishment and development of capitalism (II half of the 19th century)
Test No. 1
1. Who ruled the cities under the 1870 City Reform?
A) governors
B) city councils
C) city councils
2. On the judicial reform of 1864:
A) the equality of all social groups before the law was introduced
B) the principle of the estate court was preserved
C) a special court was created for the nobles
3. For which category of the population was corporal punishment retained even after the judicial reform of 1864?
A) for merchants
B) for peasants
C) for citizens who had a property qualification below 1 thousand rubles
4. What local government bodies were established by the reform of 1864?
A) councils of village heads
B) governors
C) zemstvo councils
5. What elections were held in the zemstvos on the reform of 1864?
A) straight
B) two-degree
C) multi-stage
6. On what conditions did the reform of 1861 provide the peasants with land?
A) entirely at the expense of the state treasury
B) free
C) for a ransom with the assistance of the government
7. To whom were the zemstvo institutions subordinate?
A) personally to the king
B) the governor
C) the leader of the local nobility
8. What was the head of the mayor for the City Regulations of 1870?
A) local state administration of the city
B) the city duma
C) city council
9. To whom was the City Duma directly subordinate to the City Regulations of 1870?
A) city government
B) the Senate
C) the governor
10. The highest censorship authority in Russia, created in 1872:
A) Security department
C) Committee of Ministers
Test number 2
1. Who approved the chairmen of the zemstvo councils?
A) zemstvo assembly and zemstvo council
B) the Minister of the Interior and the Governor
B) the emperor and the Senate
2. To whom did the local executive power belong to the Zemsky Reform of 1864?
A) zemstvo assembly
B) zemstvo council
C) the noble assembly
3. Whose participation in the court was mandatory under the judicial reform of 18664?
A) a representative of the local administration
B) the investigator
C) juror
4. Who owned the administrative power in the city government according to the City Regulations of 1870?
A) the governor
B) city government
C) the city duma
5. What became the highest court of cassation in Russia on the judicial reform of 1864?
B) Trial Chamber
C) Ministry of Justice
6. Before the reform of 1861, the peasants were ruled by a landowner. Who performed these functions after 1861?
A) government official appointed by the Senate
B) peace, or gathering, led by the headman
C) the headman, elected by the gathering
7. The reform of 1861 retained for the landowners:
A) ownership of courtyard people who previously belonged to them
B) ownership of all land belonging to them
C) for ½ part of the landlord's land
8. One of the basic principles of the Zemstvo reform:
A) bureaucratic dependence of zemstvo institutions on central state bodies
B) estate
C) electivity and lack of word
9. What was the function of the zemstvos?
A) the exercise of political power on the ground
B) performance of police and fiscal functions
C) solution of economic, administrative and cultural issues of local importance
10. What was the name of the city government body according to the City Regulations of 1870?
B) magistrate
C) city council
Test number 3
1. What major reform was carried out in 1864 following the abolition of serfdom?
A) military
B) urban
C) zemstvo
2. What emphasized the unequal position of the peasants in relation to other estates of Russia in the post-reform period?
A) the use of corporal punishment in relation to the peasants
B) sending only peasants to hard labor
C) the obligation of exclusively peasants to carry out military service
3. What did the reform of the judicial institutions introduce?
A) participation of jurors in criminal proceedings
B) participation of jurors in political processes
C) participation of jurors exclusively in all processes
4. Who was deprived of representation in zemstvo institutions?
A) peasants
B) workers and artisans
C) clergy and intelligentsia
5. What was established instead of the III department, which was abolished in 1880?
A) Security department
B) State Police Department
C) Ministry of Police
6. Law on zemstvo chiefs of 1889:
A) forbade reprisals against peasants
B) strengthened the powers of the parish court
C) abolished the magistrate's court
7. When was the law on zemstvo chiefs issued?
C) in 1901
8. Who was deprived of elective representation in zemstvos according to the Regulations on provincial and zemstvo institutions from 1890?
A) peasants
B) the intelligentsia
C) workers
9. In what year was serfdom abolished?
C) in 1869
10. The executive body city government was:
A) City Council
B) Zemskaya government
C) City government
Test No. 4
1. Representatives of the bourgeoisie and some of the liberal landowners demanded:
A) prohibit the transfer of peasants to the category of urban residents
B) prohibit taking former serfs to enterprises as civilian workers
C) the abolition of the corvée system and the transition to civilian labor
2.The 1st Congress of the RSDLP was held in:
C) 1892
3. Police reform has been carried out in:
C) 1862
4. The administrative body of city self-government was:
A) City Council
B) Zemskaya government
C) City government
5. The executive body of city self-government was:
A) City Council
B) Zemskaya government
C) City government
6. Judicial reform was carried out by the issuance of four major laws: Institutions of Judicial Regulations, Statutes of Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Statutes of Punishments. Under these laws, judges were announced:
A) irreplaceable
B) replaceable
C) appointed
7. What functions did the crown court perform in the consideration of criminal cases?
A) determined a specific punishment
B) conducted a preliminary examination of cases
C) participated in the investigation
8. The sentences in criminal cases of which courts were not subject to appeal, but came into legal force immediately?
A) district courts
B) crown vessels
B) magistrates' courts
9. Who handled appeals against decisions of district courts?
A) local courts
B) the judicial chamber
C) rural municipality courts
10. The prosecutor's office was headed by:
A) Minister of Justice
B) burgomaster
C) judge
Test number 5
1. According to the principle of the presumption of innocence, any person was considered innocent:
A) until his guilt is established by the court
B) until he is arrested
B) until he confesses to the crime
2. An important innovation of the judicial reform in Russia was considered:
A) the introduction of the prosecutor's office
B) the introduction of the legal profession
C) the creation of the city council
3. The most important in the military reform of 1874 was:
A) the abolition of recruitment, the establishment of compulsory military service
B) cancellation of compulsory military service
C) toughening recruitment sets
4. That at the end of the XIX century. called the merchant council?
A) a state institution that was engaged in the supervision of merchants, taxation
B) a city organization, elected by a meeting of merchants, which registered trading houses, had the right to enter the Ministry of Finance with representations
C) merchants club, recreation center, business communication
5. At the end of the XIX century. in Russia, the county was administratively divided into:
A) communities
B) stans
6. Who headed such an administrative unit in Russia as the camp?
A) bailiff
B) the sergeant
C) overseer
7. According to the judicial reform of 1864, the local courts included:
A) volost, justices of the peace
B) district courts
C) judicial chambers
8. Zemstvos created as a result of the Zemstvo reform of 1864 were:
A) local governments
B) legislative bodies
C) executive bodies
9. Who was the chairman of the Council of Ministers, which existed since November 1861?
A) governor
B) prime minister
C) the emperor
10. In the Russian Empire, a large city was administratively divided into:
B) plots
The imperial period of the Russian state lasts from 1721 to 1917. It is not surprising that over such a long period of time, the judicial system has changed more than once: new institutions arose, old ones were abolished. But despite the complexity of this period, the entire history of the development of the judicial system of the Russian Empire can be roughly divided into three parts: before the reform of 1864, and after it the period of counter-reforms.
Pre-reform period. Consider the judicial system under Peter I from higher courts to the lower ones. The monarch stood at the head of the entire judicial system of the Russian Empire. Immediately after him, the Senate was in the hierarchy, replacing the Boyar Duma. He was an appellate instance and also considered the most important state cases, tried senior officials. The collegiums that replaced the orders carried out judicial functions within the framework of their powers. For example, the court on land affairs belonged to the patrimonial collegium, financial crimes were considered by the Kamerts collegium. The Justitz Collegium was in charge of the local courts, and it was also the court of appeal in relation to them. Nadvornye (on the territory of the province) and Lower (on the territory of the province) courts operated on the ground. It was in their institution that the first attempt in Russian history to separate the court from the administration was reflected. The attempt, however, was unsuccessful, since these courts were headed by the governors, who represented the executive power in the province. Cases were transferred from the lower courts to the courts on appeal, and the decisions of the lower courts concerning death penalty, had to be approved by the court courts. Later, these courts were abolished, and judicial functions within the province and province were transferred to governors and voivods, respectively. In addition to these judicial bodies, there were City Magistrates in charge of the first instance civil affairs in cities. Despite the electiveness of their composition, they were dependent on the governors. City magistrates were subordinate to the Chief Magistrate, who served as a court of appeal.
The trial was still divided into two types: search and adversarial. The first was now used in almost all criminal cases. The second - by civil disputes... A new system for evaluating evidence is being introduced. Witnesses cease to be persons who must help the party who referred to them, and now they are official persons, that is, they are obliged to appear in court and confirm or deny before the court any controversial fact. All evidence is now considered according to the "formal theory of the evaluation of evidence" - the law establishes the formal strength of all evidence. The court can only make sure that the established facts fall within the definition of valid evidence, and their totality is sufficient to pass a certain verdict. Court hearings were held behind closed doors
After Peter's death, the judicial system did not fundamentally change until 1864. The idea of division of courts had to be abandoned for a number of political and economic reasons. As mentioned above, the lower and court courts were abolished, and their functions were transferred to governors and voivods. This affected the efficiency of legal proceedings. The heads of administration, already overloaded with management affairs, were simply not able to solve everything in a timely manner. judicial matters... The city magistrates were first abolished, but later restored again with expanded jurisdiction - now they decided matters related to the activities of foreign merchants (except for English ones). Under Catherine II, the courts acquired a class character. Each estate created its own judicial body. For the peasants, these were the lower and upper punishments, cases from the lower punishment to the upper were transferred by way of appeal. The upper chamber played the role of an auditing (supervisory) instance over the lower reprisals. For the nobility, the district court (the lowest instance that existed in each district) and the upper zemstvo court (one per province), which was the appeal and revision instance for the district court, became the judicial body. City dwellers were judged in the city magistrate, which existed in each city, the functions of the appellate and revision authority were performed by the Provincial Magistrate. All courts were divided into two chambers - civil and criminal. In addition, there was still a non-conciliatory Court of Conscience - called upon to decide cases in a conciliatory manner.
Over the years, the problems initially inherent in the judicial system of the Russian Empire have intensified. The formal theory of the assessment of evidence, the class, the closed nature of the process, the increasing gravitation to the search instead of the adversarial process and the massive bribery of judges led to a complete breakdown of the entire judicial system. This part of the Russian state, like no other, demanded an early reform. And the reforms were carried out.
Post-reform period. The main documents of the judicial reform of 1864 were: Institutions of the judicial establishment, the Charter of criminal proceedings, the Charter of civil proceedings, the Charter of punishments imposed by justices of the peace. New principles of legal proceedings were proclaimed: the independence of the court from the administration, the lack of word of the court, the establishment of prosecutorial supervision, the introduction of jurors, the separation of the preliminary investigation from the court, the oral and publicity of the process, participation in the prosecution and defense process and the inadmissibility of merging the role of the defender and the prosecutor in one person, equality of the parties, the formal assessment of evidence was eliminated and the principle of free assessment of evidence by the court itself was introduced on the basis of the circumstances of the case, the presumption of innocence was established. All judicial bodies of the state have undergone a complete reform. Magistrates' courts and congresses of justices of the peace operated at the local level. Justices of the peace were elected by county zemstvo assemblies, and there were rather strict criteria for candidates for magistrates - they had to pass the property qualification, have education or work experience for government positions... They had jurisdiction over minor criminal cases and civil claims for an amount not exceeding 500 rubles. Justices of the peace considered cases individually, the process was oral and public. Cases in the Magistrate's Court began on a complaint from private individuals, according to government agencies, or at the discretion of the magistrate himself. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the police. The appellate instance in relation to the justices of the peace were the congresses of the justices of the peace.
At a higher level were the district courts (operating within the judicial, rather than administrative divisions) and judicial chambers. The District Court consisted of a civil and criminal chamber. The criminal chamber, in turn, was divided into a crown court and a jury. The district court considered almost all criminal and civil cases that went beyond the competence of justices of the peace. The court sessions were collegial (two judges and one chairman). For the preliminary investigation, the district courts had forensic investigators. As a rule, nobles were the judges of such courts. They were appointed by the emperor on the proposal of the Minister of Justice.
The jury could not be everyone, they were selected by special commissions, had to meet many requirements and were approved by the governor. The task of the jury was, after listening to all the arguments of the court, to decide whether the accused was guilty or not, the determination of the measure of punishment remained with the court.
The judicial chambers were the appellate and supervisory instance in relation to the district courts. They also considered especially important cases in the first instance, such as cases of high treason or crimes of officials. The judicial chambers were created one by one for several provinces and were divided into civil and criminal departments.
Above all the judicial organs of the Russian Empire was the Senate. He was the cassation instance in relation to all courts. And he could be a court of first instance for especially important cases. For example, he tried cases of crimes of high-ranking officials
For the consideration of cases of state crimes of particular importance, a specialized court could be created by decree of the Emperor: the Supreme Criminal Court.
The emperor, which is quite natural for absolutism, stood at the head of the entire judicial system.
During the period of counter-reforms, legislators partially restored the state of the judicial system until 1864. Courts for especially important cases began to be held in special order, the irremovability of judges was limited and their dependence on the administration increased: the higher disciplinary presence was given the right to dismiss judges without petition, not only for official misconduct, but also for disgusting morals and reprehensible official misconduct. Thus, the governors could declare territories in a special position, during which all criminals were subject to the court of the military court, which, without delving into the essence of the case, quickly passed convictions. There was a decrease in the jurisdiction of jury cases, first political cases were removed from their jurisdiction (the jury often acquitted criminals), and then a number of other cases.