Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Are Russian Courts Capable of Creating Precedents? Overcoming Inconsistency in Case Law

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Review of Central and East European Law
For more content, see Review of Socialist Law.

This article discusses the issue of the consistency of judicial decisions in two of Russia’s highest courts: the Supreme Court and the Higher Arbitrazh Court. The President of the latter has been especially vocal in advocating for the “introduction of the doctrine of precedent into Russian law”. This idea, understood as the power to bind lower courts by judgments in individual cases, has even received support from the RF Constitutional Court. However, this article stresses that before discussing whether there may—or may not—be a place for judicial precedent in Russia, the judgments of the two highest courts must be consistent. We examine one particular issue that lends itself to a number of possible solutions: the judicial review of internal circulars from federal bodies of executive power. The case law of the two courts has been marked by U-turns in dealing with this matter. They sometimes have issued completely different judgments in similar cases over a short period of time, while failing to explain why their rulings differ from earlier judgments. The author of the present article argues that this inconsistency gives witness to a number of fundamental flaws in judicial decisionmaking in Russia and undermines any discourse in support of precedent in Russia.

10.1163/15730352-00000007
/content/journals/10.1163/15730352-00000007
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15730352-00000007
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15730352-00000007
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15730352-00000007
2013-01-01
2018-07-20

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Review of Central and East European Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation