Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Legal Studies
Reference:

Comparative legal analysis of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice

Kartsevskaya Ol'ga Aleksandrovna

Judge; Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction

29 Vereyskaya str., p. 34, Moscow, 121357, Russia

olgakartsevskaya@yandex.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-7136.2024.8.71157

EDN:

RQDBHN

Received:

29-06-2024

Published:

31-08-2024

Abstract: The object of this study is a set of legal relations arising in the organization of judicial structures and court structures based on the principles of singleness and collegiality. The subject of this study is the definition of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court". The conducted research contributes in the future to the development of a system of theoretical ideas about the principles of collegiality and singleness in the organization of Russian justice, about the criteria for their implementation and the systemic links between these principles and other principles, as well as the development on the basis of proposals designed to correct the relevant provisions of the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The research method is comparative legal analysis, which allows to study the subject both from the standpoint of analytics and comparative studies. The result of the work are the author's definitions of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court". The scope of the results is the development of public law doctrine and current legislation governing the organization of justice in the Russian Federation. The scientific novelty of the research consists in enriching the conceptual apparatus that defines the elements of the justice system, as well as in suggesting a possible direction for reforming the current legislation of the Russian Federation regulating the organization of justice. The conclusion is that the proposed differentiation of concepts is designed to achieve both doctrinal uniformity and, in the legislative sphere, to help eliminate conflicts through unification. The introduction of these definitions into scientific circulation in the future may lead to changes in the relevant procedural codes.

Keywords:

comparative legal analysis, composition of the court, judicial composition, organization, justice, the doctrine, current legislation, definition, collision, unification
This article is automatically translated.

In the modern period in the Russian Federation, justice has become an integral component of the life of citizens and the functioning of legal entities. The restoration of violated interests in court is an organic part of the political and legal culture of society. On the one hand, it should be noted the undoubtedly positive connotation of this process, expressed in equal rights and actually realized opportunities to defend their rights and freedoms in court. On the other hand, the accessibility of justice, the business habits of going to court that have become firmly established in the life of every citizen, and the many times simplified procedure due to the possibilities of digitalization have collectively led to a global increase in incoming and, as a result, pending cases. The bulk of cases initiated by ordinary citizens go to the courts of general jurisdiction, and in this regard there is a need to increase the number of judges and staff of the courts of both first instance and higher courts, and, consequently, to complicate the forms of their organization. This largely explains the need for judicial reform, which resulted in the creation of courts of appeal and cassation of general jurisdiction.

However, the branching of the judicial authorities caused by the objective processes outlined above is fraught with the erosion of the vertical of judicial power, which is one of the pillars of the state hierarchy. In this regard, the preservation of a hierarchically structured judicial system is impossible without improving the forms of organization of judicial structures and court structures. The consequence of the unlimited multiplication of judicial bodies will inevitably be the loss of the controllability of the judicial system, its centralization, and the unity of judicial practice. An alternative to the excessive expansion of the judicial system is the complication of the internal structure of judicial bodies through the prism of the variety of forms of organization of the composition of courts and judicial structures.

The fulfillment of the task indicated in the title of the article is obviously possible based on a proper methodological basis. In this regard, the method of comparative legal analysis seems to be the most useful, which suggests the possibility of exploring the subject of study both from the standpoint of analytics and comparative studies. Their combination makes it possible to carry out a deep comprehensive study of the current legislation regulating the status of the judicial composition and the composition of the court, as well as through comparison to identify common and special features in their definition.

In the current Russian legislation, there are certain terminological conflicts between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition". The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the APC of the Russian Federation), the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CAS of the Russian Federation) include judges (or a sole judge) considering a specific the case. Also, the Rules of Arbitration Courts, approved by Resolution No. 7 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/1996, calls the judges considering a particular case "the composition of the court". On the contrary, Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 04/28/1995 "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" means the structure of arbitration courts of various levels by "composition of the court", and the internal structure of judicial boards is called "judicial composition".

Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 07.02.2011 "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" also means by "composition of the court" the structure of courts of general jurisdiction at various levels, and the concept of "judicial composition" It is applied to the internal content of judicial panels.

In this regard, the question arises what is the difference between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court", especially since the current legislation defines as the composition of the court both the internal structure of the courts and the personalized composition of judges for the consideration of a specific legal case. Thus, in article 18 of Chapter two of the APC of the Russian Federation, the composition of the court is understood to be a team of judges formed to consider individual cases, including with the participation of arbitration assessors. Similar provisions are contained in Part 3 of Article 14 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, in part 1 of Article 30 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, in part 1 of Article 28 of the CAS of the Russian Federation.

In summary, we emphasize that from the point of view of procedural legislation, the composition of the court is a collective of judges formed in each specific case or a sole judge. At the same time, according to Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 04/28/1995 "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" and Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 02/07/2011 "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation", which has greater legal force than the above-mentioned codified federal laws, the composition of the court means the structure of the court of each level.

The issues of the relationship between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" in foreign legislation are ambiguously resolved. Thus, in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal Republic of Germany, the concept of "composition of the court" is used in the meaning of judicial composition, that is, specific judges who consider cases individually or collectively (§ 27 para. 2, § 222a, § 222b, § 271 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal Republic of Germany, etc.). The composition of the court is interpreted in a similar way in Article 1506 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code of the People's Republic of China speaks about the numerical composition of judges, which in its content is close to the concept of "judicial composition" under consideration (Article 147 of the CPC of the People's Republic of China). It follows from this that the issues raised in the article are relevant for foreign countries as well.

The study of the relationship between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition", issues of collegiality and singleness in the organization of justice was among the scientific interests of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern domestic jurists.

The scientists belonging to the first group were interested in the following groups of questions. Retrospective aspects of the development of legal proceedings were developed by A.P. Kunitsyn [1]. Within the framework of the civil process, collegiality and singleness were studied by legal scholars E.V. Vaskovsky [2], A.H. Golmsten [3], E.A. Nefediev [4]. In the works of G.S. Feldstein, the criminal procedural problems of the ratio of the composition of the court and the judicial composition were studied [5].

The scientific discussion that unfolded during the Soviet period covered a range of issues that, based on the Marxist-Leninist methodology, generally correlated with the pre-revolutionary one. The organizational foundations of the Soviet court were in the field of view of A.F. Gorkin [6] and T.N. Dobrovolskaya [7]. From the perspective of civil procedure, the issues of the correlation of collegiality and singleness, the categories of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" were studied by S.N. Abramov [8], A.F. Kleinman [9], V.A. Krasnokutsky [10]. In relation to the criminal process, singleness and collegiality formed the sphere of scientific interests, B.A. Galkin [11], Yu.F. Lubshev [12].

At the present stage of the development of legal science, a number of problems related to the disclosure of the topic have been studied from the standpoint of the manifestation of singleness and collegiality in administrative, arbitration, civil and criminal proceedings. The works of S.Y. Tomchik are devoted to the principles of administrative proceedings [13, 14, 15]. The fundamental principles of civil and arbitration proceedings were devoted to the works of I.M. Divin [16], A.I. Panchenko [17], N.M. Stepanova [18], A.S. Fedina [19].

The discussion, which lasted for a century and a half, did not reveal the dominant point of view on the subject of the dispute. There is no unified position in the scientific literature on what is considered to be the composition of the court and the judicial composition. Thus, researcher M. P. Kulenkova directly connects the composition of the court with the categories of collegiality and singleness: "One of the grounds for differentiating the forms of consideration of criminal cases in court is the composition of the court (collegiality and singleness)" [20, p. 232].

There are publications in which the composition of the court is understood as its internal structural organization [21]. Thus, E. S. Yurova in the article "The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: composition, competence, practice", understanding the composition of the court as its internal structure, notes: "The court has a rather complex structure. It consists of a Large Collegium of the Court, the Collegium of the Court, the Appeals Chamber, the Judicial Corps, the Judge's Adviser and the Secretariat" [22, p. 474]. A similar terminological position is taken by E. A. Ageeva, analyzing the peculiarities of the formation of the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States [23]. Retrospectively examining the domestic judicial system, Yu. V. Baranov considers the composition of the Moscow Conscience Court in the same sense: "The Moscow Conscience Court was established in October 1782, in the following composition: the chairman of the court – privy councilor, senator and cavalier M. M. Saltykov and assessors from the nobility – Colonel M. Sakovnin and Captain Ya. Dashkov, citizens – I. Vasiliev and I. Botler, and krestyan – M. Fedorov and E. Ivanov" [24, p. 31]. The same position applies to non-State courts. Thus, researcher S. G. Shigirdanov in his work "The change in the composition of the Supreme Church–Wide Court for 2008-2017" in relation to the Institute of the Russian Orthodox Church notes: "In accordance with Article 3 of the Definition "On the Church Court", the following bishops appeared in the first composition of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court: Metropolitan Isidore of Yekaterinodar and Kuban – chairman; Metropolitan Onufry of Chernivtsi and Bukovina ... – deputy chairman; Archbishop Evlogy of Vladimir and Suzdal ...; Archbishop Feodosiy of Polotsk and Glubokoe; Bishop Alexander of Dmitrov (now Metropolitan of Bryansk and Sevsky) – secretary" [25, pp. 199-206]. Not being a judicial body proper, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Court is used in this study to understand the author's attitude to the term "composition of the court". Regarding the world court, P. V. Kondrashin adheres to a similar position in his works "The right to a "lawful court" and its implementation when changing the composition of the court and jurisdiction in the world justice" and "Assessment of evidence and its impact on the composition of the court" [26, 27].

In some cases, these categories are characterized as synonymous [28]. For example, A. A. Mikhailova in her article discusses the composition of the court, arguing that "failure to comply with the condition of immutability of the composition of the court is one of the significant violations of the rules of civil, arbitration and criminal proceedings, entailing the cancellation of judicial acts by a higher court" [29, p. 65]. Further, the position is justified by the provision of the regulations of the Kirov Regional Court, which deals with the judicial composition: "... in clause 3.3 of the Regulations of the Kirov Regional Court, it is indicated that the personal composition of judicial structures is fixed in the order on the distribution of duties, and by virtue of clause 4.2 of the Rules of the same court, the chairman of the judicial structure, who organizes the work of the composition, is approved by the order of the chairman of the regional court" [29, p. 65].

There is also a position according to which the composition of the court is the judges directly considering a particular case [30, p. 421]. It is in this direction that the logic of researcher Yu. V. Fedorova also follows, stating that "the immutability of the composition of the court when considering a criminal case is the best guarantee of the correctness of the verdict" [31, p. 29]. Speaking about the immutability of the composition of the court, A.V. Shilov adheres to the same position: "The principle of the immutability of the composition of the court is in close connection with the principle of the immediacy of judicial proceedings. It can be defined as a rule, according to which the judge must personally perceive the evidence in the case and make a decision based on this evidence" [32, p. 112]. It seems that E. D. Pinchuk and O. N. Dyadkin agree with this point of view, noting in their article "The composition of the court in the consideration of criminal cases and the determination of their jurisdiction": "... the consideration of criminal cases is carried out by the following composition of judges: a single justice of the peace, a judge of a district (city) court, a court consisting of three professional judges, a court with the participation of jurors" [33, p. 260]. In relation to arbitration courts, a similar view is conveyed by S. A. Alyoshukina in the work "Formation of the composition of the arbitral tribunal by a competent court: assistance or intervention?" [34]. The formation of a panel of jurors as the formation of the composition of the court is understood by A.M. Isamagomedov and G. I. Takho-Godi [35]. D. A. Krivosheeva examines the illegal composition of the court as an unconditional basis for the cancellation of a court decision by the cassation court of general jurisdiction, understanding by the composition of the court it is the judges considering a particular case [36]. V. P. Skobelev so he understands the composition of the court, examining the arbitration courts of the Republic of Belarus: "As can be seen ... the norm does not provide for the parties to the dispute to determine by their arbitration agreement the procedure for forming the composition of a permanent arbitration court, which, in our opinion, is hardly justified" [37, p. 73]. With regard to arbitration courts, the composition of the court as directly considering The cases of judges are considered by A. A. Kozhin and E. E. Tkal: "The procedure for forming the composition of the court for a particular case is determined by the Rules of Arbitration courts. There is an automatic information system that forms the composition of the court independently, this allows for a uniform load and eliminates any influence of persons on the formation of the composition of the court" [38, p. 49]. T. S. Durandina, examining the jury, replaces the term "judicial composition" with the term "judicial board" in semantic terms: "A jury trial is a form of court organization that assumes the separate existence of two independent panels in it and the differentiation of competence between them: a jury consisting of twelve people resolves issues of fact (guilt of the defendant) in its verdict, and a professional judge, based on the verdict of the jury, passes a verdict in which he resolves issues of law" [39, p. 88]. At the same time, considering the title of the article – "Jury trial: concept and composition" – the author considers the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" as synonyms.

In this regard, it is proposed to define the definition of "composition of the court" as an internal structural division of arbitration courts or courts of general jurisdiction at various levels, including such divisions as collegiums, presidium, plenum, and "judicial composition" – a specific team of judges or a sole judge determined to consider and resolve certain court cases.

The formulated definitions of the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" allow us to highlight their characteristic features.

The signs of the composition of the court, in our opinion, are as follows.

  1. Structuring. The composition of the court is a certain structural organization consisting of several elements with their own specialization, one or another functional purpose: the presidium, collegiums, chambers, etc.
  2. Consistency. The composition of the court is, first of all, a system, that is, a set consisting of several elements that are interconnected and mutually influenced. The elements included in the system are not arranged randomly, but are ordered in a certain way.
  3. Specialization. The elements included in the court have an appropriate purpose and functional orientation. The chairman of the court has his own tasks and means of fulfilling them, the presidium has others, and the collegiums have others.
  4. Collegiality. The composition of the court, as an internal structural division of courts, initially assumes the summation of wills in the decision-making process, in this regard, the sole management of the system does not seem either permissible or advisable.
  5. Professionalism. The internal structure of the court is formed by professionals and is headed by professionals. The composition of the court, in the sense we understand, is influenced by professionals with relevant knowledge and experience.
  6. Stability. The composition of the court as a unity of its structural divisions is quite static, it is fixed in the relevant acts of both an individual and normative nature, and remains until the cancellation or modification of such acts.

In turn, the judicial structures differ in such essential features.

  1. The variability of the structural organization. The team of judges or the specific judge investigating the relevant case may vary from one trial to another.
  2. Situationality. The stable composition is maintained only within the framework of specific cases, and with the change of the case, the team is often reformatted.
  3. Specialization. It should be noted that this feature unites the composition of the court and the judicial composition. In this case, it should be said that the judicial composition, as a rule, includes judges specializing in certain categories of cases. Following this rule makes justice more effective.
  4. An organic combination of collegiality and singleness. If the composition of the court in our proposed understanding, being a certain branched structure, by its nature does not imply sole decision-making, then the judicial composition can be either collective or individual when it consists of one judge.
  5. Combining the participation of professional judges and the possibility of administering justice through the involvement of jurors and arbitrators. Thus, the democracy of the administration of justice is added to the professionalism of judges. Thus, legal issues are proposed to be solved by professionals, and representatives of the people – jurors and people's assessors - can assess the actual circumstances.
  6. Dynamism. If the composition of the court is a kind of static structure established for a particular long time, then the judicial composition is mobile, changing from one case to another by lot or decision of the chairman of the court.

The differentiation of concepts proposed on the basis of the application of the method of comparative legal analysis makes it possible to bring the conceptual apparatus to uniformity not only in a doctrinal sense, but also from the point of view of reforming the current legislation of the Russian Federation in the direction of its unification in order to eliminate conflicts.

The first step in this direction, in our opinion, may be the introduction of the procedural codes of singleness and collegiality as the main principles. Currently, this is done only in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Article 7). We believe in this regard that the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation can be supplemented by Article 1.1. "Singleness and collegiality in the administration of justice" as follows: "1.Justice is carried out by arbitration courts on the basis of sole consideration of cases, except in cases provided for The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. 2. In cases provided for by the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, justice is administered by arbitration courts collectively, including with the participation of arbitration assessors." Similarly, Article 8.1 "Singleness and collegiality in the administration of justice" may be introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Its content would emphasize these principles as the main ones for the criminal process: "1. Justice in criminal cases shall be carried out on the basis of a single examination of cases, except in cases provided for by this Code. 2. In the cases provided for by this Code, justice in criminal cases is carried out collectively, including with the participation of jurors." Extending this practice to the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to supplement Article 6 "Principles of administrative Procedure" with collegiality and singleness as the main principles, as well as to supplement the Code with Article 9.1 "Singleness and collegiality in the consideration and resolution of administrative cases": "1. Justice in the consideration and resolution of administrative cases is carried out by courts on the basis of sole consideration of cases, except in cases provided for by this Code. 2. In the cases provided for by this Code, justice in the consideration and resolution of administrative cases is carried out by the courts collectively."

After the implementation of such amendments, it would be possible to proceed to a deeper revision of the procedural codes, bringing them into line with the federal constitutional laws "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" and "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation".

Thus, as a result of the study of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice, appropriate definitions were given. This made it possible to identify the features of the legal categories under study. For the composition of the court, this is structuring, consistency, specialization, collegiality, professionalism and stability. In turn, the judicial structures are distinguished by the associativity of the structural organization, creativity, specialization, an organic combination of collegiality and singleness, combining the participation of professional judges and the possibility of justice through the involvement of juries and arbitrators, dynamism. It is noted that certain features of the composition of courts and judicial structures overlap, while others are specific. The comparative legal analysis made it possible to make proposals for improving the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

References
1. Kunitsyn, A.P. (1843). Historical depiction of ancient judicial proceedings in Russia. St. Petersburg: Printing House of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery.
2. Vaskovsky, E.V. (2003). Textbook of civil procedure. Moscow: Mirror.
3. Golmsten, A.H. (2004). Textbook of Russian civil procedure. Maykop: Ajax.
4. Nefediev, E.A. (1909). Textbook of Russian civil procedure. Moscow: Moscow University Printing House.
5. Feldstein, G.S. (1915). Lectures on criminal proceedings. Moscow: typo-lithograph by V. Richter.
6. Gorkin, A.F. (1972). Leninist principles of the organization and activity of the Soviet court. Socialist legality, 4, 15-22.
7. Dobrovolskaya, T.N. (1962). Lenin's principles of organization and activity of Soviet justice bodies. The Soviet State and Law, 10, 93-101.
8. Abramov, S.N. (1944). Judicial review and resolution of civil cases. The court session and the court decision. Moscow.
9. Kleinman, A.F. (1946). To the draft Code of Civil Procedure of the USSR. Socialist legality, 11-12, 35-37.
10. Krasnokutsky, V.A. (1924). Essays on civil procedural law. The experience of systematization of the legislation of the RSFSR and the USSR on the judicial system and civil proceedings. Kineshma.
11. Galkin, B.A. (1958). Issues of the court and criminal procedure in the works of V. I. Lenin. Scientific journal. VUZI, 6, 5-29.
12. Lubshev, Yu. F. (1977). Leninist ideas in criminal proceedings. Soviet Justice, 8, 6-8.
13. Tomchik, S.Y. (2016). Legislative regulation of the principles of administrative proceedings. Russian Journal of Legal Studies, 2(7), 140-143.
14. Tomchik, S.Y. (2017). The role of legal principles in administrative proceedings. Philosophy of social communications, 4(41), 37-39.
15. Tomchik, S.Y. (2016). The essence of the principles of administrative proceedings. Bulletin of the Eurasian Academy of Administrative Sciences, 4(37), 7-9.
16. Divin, I.M. (2009). The basic principles of administrative proceedings in the arbitration process. Bulletin of the Adygeya State University. Ser. 1: Regional studies: philosophy, history, sociology, jurisprudence, political science, cultural studies, 1, 167-173.
17. Panchenko, A.I. (2015). Ensuring the consideration of a civil case in an appellate instance by a lawful court. Russian Justice, 10(114), 30-45.
18. Stepanova, N.M. Some aspects of the principle of collegiality in criminal and civil proceedings. Lex russica, 5, 971-975.
19. Fedina, A.S. (2014). The content of the principles of arbitration procedural law. Bulletin of Tver State University. Ser.: Pravo, 1, 162-174.
20. Kulenkova, M.P. (2008). Some problematic issues of choosing the composition of the court for consideration of criminal cases. Bulletin of Omsk University. Series "Law", 1(14), 232-234.
21. Al-Muhamed Ghani Zqaer Atiya, Khaled Kazim Al Ibrahimi. (2013). Constitutional principles of the composition of the court of the judicial control body in the Republic of Iraq. Territory of Science, 2, 260-264.
22. Yurova, E.S. (2019). Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: composition, competence, practice. Youth and science: a step to success: a collection of scientific articles of the 3rd All-Russian scientific conference of promising developments of young scientists: in 5 volumes (pp. 473-477). Vol. 2. Kursk: University Book.
23. Ageeva, E.A. (2021). Features of the formation of the composition of the US Supreme Court and the role of the personal factor in its functioning. Scientific notes of the Faculty of Law, 4, 60-62.
24. Baranov, Yu.V. (2019). Composition and record keeping of the Moscow Conscientious Court. COLLOQUIUM-JOURNAL, 13-12(37), 30-31.
25. Shigirdanov, S.G. (2019). Changes in the composition of the Supreme Church Court for 2008–2017. Scientific works of the Samara Theological Seminary: collection of articles. Vol. VII. (рр. 199-206). Samara: Salyut.
26. Kondrashin, P.V. (2020). The right to a “legal court” and its implementation when changing the composition of the court and jurisdiction in the world justice. Current problems in the fight against crime: questions of theory and practice: materials of the XXIII International. scientific-practical conf.: at 2 hours. (рр. 166-15) Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. V. 1.
27. Kondrashin, P.V. (2022). Evaluation of evidence and its influence on the composition of the court. Bulletin of the Siberian Legal Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 3(48), 147-153.
28. Antonova, O.P. (2008). Distribution of cases and formation of the judiciary as a guarantee of the independence and impartiality of the court. Current problems of Russian law, 4, 342-348.
29. Mikhailova, A.A. (2017). Composition of the court. Current problems of civil law and process: materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical. conf. (рр. 64-70). Omsk: Omsk Law Academy.
30. Rudenko, V.N. (2010). Institute of lot in the formation of the composition of Scheffen courts in Germany. Scientific yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 10, 417-426.
31. Fedorova, Yu.V. (2017). Replacement of the public prosecutor while the composition of the court remains unchanged. Nizhny Novgorod science, 2(2), 28-34.
32. Shilov, A.V. (2020). Legitimation of the judicial staff of the arbitration court. Economic justice in the Far East of Russia, 4(19), 112-117.
33. Pinchuk, E.D., & Dyadkin, O.N. (2018). Composition of the court when considering criminal cases and determining their jurisdiction. Science, education, society: trends and development prospects: collection of materials XII International. scientific-practical conf. (рр. 259-261). Cheboksary: Center for Scientific Cooperation «Interactive Plus».
34. Aleshukina, S.A. (2020). Formation of the arbitral tribunal by a competent court: assistance or interference?. Bulletin of Tver State University. Series «Law», 3(63), 65-70.
35. Isamagomedov, A.M., & Takho-Godi, G.I. (2022). Problems of formation and composition of mid-level courts. Bulletin of the Dagestan State University. Series 3: Social Sciences, 4, 86-91.
36. Krivosheeva, D.A. (2022). Illegal composition of the court as an unconditional basis for the cancellation of a court decision by a cassation court of general jurisdiction. Theology. Philosophy. Law, 2(18), 29-37.
37. Skobelev, V.P. (2022). On some problems of forming and determining the competence of the composition of the arbitration court. Law. by, 2(76), 73-80.
38. Kozhina, A.A., & Tkalya, E.E. (2022). Some issues of forming the composition of the court in arbitration proceedings. Scientific electronic journal «Meridian», 1(63), 48-50.
39. Durandina, T.S. (2018). Jury: concept and composition. Questions of science and education, 5(17), 88-89.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for review is, as its name implies, a comparative legal analysis of the definitions of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice. The title of the work needs a little clarification: "Comparative legal analysis of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice." The stated boundaries of the study are observed by the author. The methodology of the study is disclosed: "The method of comparative legal analysis assumes the possibility of studying the subject of study from the standpoint of both analytics and comparative studies. Their combination makes it possible to carry out a deep comprehensive study of the current legislation regulating the status of the judicial composition and the composition of the court, as well as through comparison to identify common and special features in their definition." The relevance of the research topic chosen by the author is beyond doubt and is justified by him as follows: "In the current Russian legislation there are certain terminological conflicts between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition". The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the APC of the Russian Federation), the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CAS of the Russian Federation) include judges (or a sole judge) considering a specific the case. Also, the Rules of Arbitration Courts, approved by Resolution No. 7 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/1996, calls the judges considering a particular case "the composition of the court". On the contrary, Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 04/28/1995 "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" means the structure of arbitration courts of various levels by "composition of the court", and the internal structure of judicial boards is called "judicial composition". Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 07.02.2011 "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" also understands the structure of courts of general jurisdiction at various levels by "composition of the court", and the concept of "judicial composition" is not singled out separately. In this regard, the question arises what is the difference between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court", especially since the current legislation defines as the composition of the court both the internal structure of the courts and the personalized composition of judges for the consideration of a specific legal case." Additionally, the scientist needs to list the names of the leading experts who have been engaged in the study of the problems raised in the article, as well as reveal the degree of their study. The scientific novelty of the work is manifested in the following sentence of the author: "In this regard, it is proposed to define the definition of "composition of the court" as an internal structural division of arbitration courts or courts of general jurisdiction at various levels, including such divisions as collegiums, presidium, plenum, and "judicial composition" – a specific team of judges or a sole judge, a certain for the consideration and resolution of certain court cases." Thus, the article makes a certain contribution to the development of domestic legal science and, of course, deserves the attention of potential readers. The scientific style of the research is fully sustained by the author. The structure of the work is quite logical. In the introductory part of the article, the author substantiates the relevance of his chosen research topic, reveals his methodology. In the main part of the work, the scientist analyzes the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" used in legislation and scientific literature, offering their definitions. The final part of the article contains conclusions based on the results of the study. The content of the article corresponds to its title, but is not without some drawbacks. Thus, the author writes: "Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 07.02.2011 "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" also understands the structure of courts of general jurisdiction at various levels by "composition of the court", and the concept of "judicial composition" is not separately distinguished" - "concept". The scientist notes: "In this regard, it is proposed to define the definition of "composition of the court" as an internal structural division of arbitration courts or courts of general jurisdiction at various levels, including such divisions as collegiums, presidium, plenum, and "judicial composition" – a specific team of judges or a sole judge determined to consider and resolve certain court cases" - "define definition" is a tautology ("define definition"). You can "define the concept". Thus, the article needs careful proofreading - there are typos and stylistic errors in it. The author needs to analyze the available foreign legislation in terms of the approaches used to understand the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" and give specific examples. The bibliography of the study is presented by 20 sources (scientific articles). From a formal point of view, this is enough, but some provisions of the work need to be clarified. There is an appeal to opponents, both general and private (M. P. Kulenkova, A. A. Mikhailova, Yu. V. Fedorova, D. A. Krivosheeva, T. S. Durandina, etc.), and it is quite sufficient. The scientific discussion is conducted by the author correctly; the provisions of the work are justified to the appropriate extent. There are conclusions based on the results of the study ("The differentiation of concepts proposed on the basis of the application of the method of comparative legal analysis makes it possible to bring the conceptual apparatus to uniformity not only in a doctrinal sense, but also from the point of view of reforming the current legislation of the Russian Federation in the direction of its unification in order to eliminate collisions"), however, they are general and not they reflect all the scientific achievements of the author. In addition, it is necessary to give specific recommendations on improving the current legislation, indicating which regulatory legal acts need to be amended. The interest of the readership in the article submitted for review can be shown primarily by specialists in the field of procedural law, provided that it is finalized: clarifying the title of the work, additional justification for the relevance of the research topic chosen by the author, clarifying and specifying conclusions based on its results, eliminating violations in the design of the article.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study. In the peer-reviewed article "Comparative legal analysis of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice", the subject of the study is the conflict of laws issues of the conceptual apparatus of branches of procedural law. Research methodology. During the writing of the article, modern research methods were used: general scientific and private. The main research method is comparative legal analysis. The methodological apparatus consists of the following dialectical methods of scientific cognition: abstraction, induction, deduction, hypothesis, analogy, synthesis, and it is also possible to note the use of typology, classification, systematization and generalization. The relevance of research. The relevance of the topic of the article is beyond doubt, since the lack of terminological clarity in the conceptual apparatus of procedural branches of law creates problems of law enforcement. The author rightly points out that "in the current Russian legislation there are certain terminological conflicts between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition". The ambiguity and inconsistency in this area of public relations and their official interpretation require additional doctrinal developments on this issue in order to improve modern legislation and law enforcement. Scientific novelty. Without questioning the importance of the previously conducted scientific research, which served as the theoretical basis for this work, nevertheless, it can be noted that this article also contains some noteworthy provisions that have the character of scientific novelty, for example: "... The differentiation of concepts proposed on the basis of the application of the method of comparative legal analysis, allows us to give the conceptual apparatus seeks uniformity not only in a doctrinal sense, but also from the point of view of reforming the current legislation of the Russian Federation in the direction of its unification in order to eliminate conflicts." The proposals developed by the author to improve legislation can be regarded as the practical significance of this study. Style, structure, content. The article is written in a scientific style using special legal terminology. The content of the article corresponds to its title. The requirements for the volume of the article are met. The article is logically structured, but not formally divided into parts. The material is presented consistently and clearly. As comments, we can note: 1. The introduction does not meet the requirements for this part of the scientific article; 2. In conclusion, it was necessary to formulate all the conclusions based on the results of the study; 3. The names of normative legal acts are incorrectly indicated (the author writes: "... in accordance with the federal constitutional codes ..."). The comments are disposable. Bibliography. The author has used a sufficient number of doctrinal sources, there are links to publications of recent years. References to sources are designed in compliance with the requirements of the bibliographic GOST. Appeal to opponents. The article presents a scientific controversy. Appeals to opponents are correct, decorated with links to the sources of publication. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article submitted for review "Comparative legal analysis of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice" may be recommended for publication. The article is written on an urgent topic, it is characterized by scientific novelty and practical significance, however, there are minor comments on its content, which are of a manageable nature. A publication on this topic could be of interest to a readership, primarily specialists in the field of civil procedure law, arbitration procedure law, administrative procedure law and criminal procedure law, and could also be useful for teachers and students of law schools and faculties.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

A REVIEW of an article on the topic "Comparative legal analysis of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice." The subject of the study. The article proposed for review is devoted to topical issues of terminological differences in the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court". Based on the analysis of legislation, the approaches of the courts to the problem under consideration, as well as the doctrinal views of various scientists, the author draws conclusions about the distinctive essential features of the categories he considers. The specific subject of the study was, first of all, the provisions of the current legislation and the opinions of scientists. Research methodology. The purpose of the study is not stated directly in the article. At the same time, it can be clearly understood from the title and content of the work. The purpose can be designated as the consideration and resolution of certain problematic aspects of the question of the relationship between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice. Based on the set goals and objectives, the author has chosen the methodological basis of the study. As noted in the article itself, "The fulfillment of the task indicated in the title of the article is obviously possible based on a proper methodological basis. In this regard, the method of comparative legal analysis seems to be the most useful, which suggests the possibility of exploring the subject of study both from the standpoint of analytics and comparative studies. Their combination makes it possible to carry out a deep comprehensive study of the current legislation regulating the status of the judicial composition and the composition of the court, as well as through comparison to identify common and special features in their definition." In particular, the author uses a set of general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, analogy, deduction, induction, and others. In particular, the methods of analysis and synthesis made it possible to summarize and share the conclusions of various scientific approaches to the proposed topic, as well as draw specific conclusions from business practice materials. The most important role was played by special legal methods. In particular, the author actively applied the formal legal method, which made it possible to analyze and interpret the norms of current legislation. For example, the following conclusion of the author: "In the current Russian legislation there are certain terminological conflicts between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition". The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CPC of the Russian Federation), the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the APC of the Russian Federation), the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CAS of the Russian Federation) include judges (or a sole judge) considering a specific the case. Also, the Rules of Arbitration Courts, approved by Resolution No. 7 of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 06/05/1996, calls the judges considering a particular case "the composition of the court". On the contrary, Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 04/28/1995 "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" means the structure of arbitration courts of various levels by "composition of the court", and the internal structure of judicial boards is called "judicial composition". Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ dated 07.02.2011 "On Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation" also means the structure of courts of general jurisdiction at various levels by "composition of the court", and the concept of "judicial composition" is applied to the internal content of judicial panels." It is necessary to positively assess the possibilities of the comparative legal research method, which allowed the author to compare Russian and foreign legislation and doctrine on the issue under study. In particular, the following conclusions are drawn: "The issues of the relationship between the concepts of "composition of the court" and "judicial composition" in foreign legislation are ambiguously resolved. Thus, in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal Republic of Germany, the concept of "composition of the court" is used in the meaning of judicial composition, that is, specific judges who consider cases individually or collectively (§ 27 para. 2, § 222a, § 222b, § 271 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federal Republic of Germany, etc.). The composition of the court is interpreted in a similar way in Article 1506 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code of the People's Republic of China speaks about the numerical composition of judges, which in its content is close to the concept of "judicial composition" under consideration (Article 147 of the CPC of the People's Republic of China). It follows from this that the issues raised in the article are relevant for foreign countries as well." Thus, the methodology chosen by the author is fully adequate to the purpose of the study, allows you to study all aspects of the topic in its entirety. Relevance. The relevance of the stated issues is beyond doubt. There are both theoretical and practical aspects of the significance of the proposed topic. From the point of view of theory, the topic of the relationship between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice is complex and ambiguous. Indeed, in Russian law, this terminological issue is not resolved unambiguously, which may raise questions among scientists and practicing lawyers. It is difficult to argue with the author that "the branching of the judicial authorities caused by the objective processes outlined above is fraught with the erosion of the vertical of judicial power, which is one of the pillars of the state hierarchy. In this regard, the preservation of a hierarchically structured judicial system is impossible without improving the forms of organization of judicial structures and court structures. The consequence of the unlimited multiplication of judicial bodies will inevitably be the loss of the controllability of the judicial system, its centralization, and the unity of judicial practice. An alternative to the excessive expansion of the judicial system is the complication of the internal structure of judicial bodies through the prism of the variety of forms of organization of the composition of courts and judicial structures." Thus, scientific research in the proposed field should only be welcomed. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of the proposed article is beyond doubt. Firstly, it is expressed in the author's specific conclusions. Among them, for example, is the following conclusion: "as a result of the study of the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice, appropriate definitions were given. This made it possible to identify the features of the legal categories under study. For the composition of the court, this is structuring, consistency, specialization, collegiality, professionalism and stability. In turn, the judicial structures are distinguished by the variability of the structural organization, situationality, specialization, an organic combination of collegiality and singleness, combining the participation of professional judges and the possibility of justice through the involvement of juries and arbitrators, dynamism. It is noted that certain features of the composition of courts and judicial structures overlap, while others are specific. The comparative legal analysis made it possible to make proposals to improve the current legislation of the Russian Federation." These and other theoretical conclusions can be used in further scientific research. Secondly, the author offers recommendations for improving the current Russian legislation. In particular, the following is proposed: "The first step in this direction, in our opinion, may be the introduction of singleness and collegiality as the main principles in the procedural codes. Currently, this is done only in the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (art. 7). We believe in this regard that the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation can be supplemented by Article 1.1. "Singleness and collegiality in the administration of justice" as follows: "1.Justice is carried out by arbitration courts on the basis of a sole consideration of cases, except in cases provided for The Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. 2. In cases provided for by the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, justice is administered by arbitration courts collectively, including with the participation of arbitration assessors." This proposal may be useful in law enforcement activities. Thus, the materials of the article may be of particular interest to the scientific community in terms of contributing to the development of science.
Style, structure, content. The subject of the article corresponds to the specialization of the journal "Legal Studies", as it is devoted to legal problems related to the relationship between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice. The content of the article fully corresponds to the title, as the author has considered the stated problems, and has generally achieved the purpose of the study. The quality of the presentation of the study and its results should be recognized as fully positive. The subject, objectives, methodology and main results of the study follow directly from the text of the article. The design of the work generally meets the requirements for this kind of work. No significant violations of these requirements were found. Bibliography. The quality of the literature used should be highly appreciated. The author actively uses the literature presented by authors from Russia (Vaskovsky E.V., Golmsten A.H., Kleinman A.F., Kunitsyn A.P., Nefediev E.A., Stepanova N.M. and others). Many of the cited scientists are recognized scientists in the field of civil procedure. Thus, the works of the above authors correspond to the research topic, have a sign of sufficiency, and contribute to the disclosure of various aspects of the topic. Appeal to opponents. The author conducted a serious analysis of the current state of the problem under study. All quotes from scientists are accompanied by author's comments. That is, the author shows different points of view on the problem and tries to argue for a more correct one in his opinion. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The conclusions are fully logical, as they are obtained using a generally accepted methodology. The article may be of interest to the readership in terms of the systematic positions of the author in relation to the relationship between the concepts of "judicial composition" and "composition of the court" in the organization of Russian justice. Based on the above, summing up all the positive and negative sides of the article, "I recommend publishing"
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.