Russian legal system begins reform journey

Integral to the Russian Federation’s modernization, President Medvedev has made clear on numerous occasions his criticisms of legal nihilism. From his State Council speech on January 22, his June 2009 interview with Kommersant and his November 2009 presidential address, Medvedev has shown his positive ambitions to achieve reforms in the Russian legal system.

In addition, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) held an event last year on Medvedev’s calls for greater transparency within the Russian legal system during which Chief Justice of the Russian Supreme Arbitrazh Court Anton Ivanov voiced his support for the use of precedent in the Arbitrazh court system despite public skepticism. Ivanov explained that precedent could also help decrease corruption in Russia by serving as a point of unbiased reference to judges in lower courts who feel pressure from local bodies to rule in a certain way. CEIP summed up Ivanov’s comments:

He urged for example additional steps to improve the qualifications of judges. He pointed to Japan’s legal system – where judges are appointed by the Japanese Supreme Court – as a possible way to restructure the Russian court system to improve its independence. Ivanov cautioned, however, that although many people would like to see the rule of law take hold at a faster pace, the government must first create the appropriate conditions of support among the citizenry.

Most recently, Kommersant reported that the Russian Constitutional Court made its first move toward ratifying a precedential system in January, when it adopted a decision effectively authorizing rulings made by the Supreme Arbitrazh Court to become legally binding for future cases. The article explained that the Supreme Court agreed such rulings may be grounds for reconsideration of earlier cases, though only in limited circumstances.  Kommersant noted that the precedential system, sometimes referred to as common law, would make rulings by top judges on selected cases into binding examples for lower courts to follow.