Advertisement

Sympathy Judgements of Conscience in the Russian Constitutional Court

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 54)

Abstract

In this chapter we shall consider sympathy judgements in a particular context where the judges are not authorised to decide on the merits of a particular case but only on the question of law involved. However, in passing their judgements on the question of law the judges are aware of the impact their interpretation of law would have on the people affected by that law. In the previous chapter about the declaratory power of the Scottish High Court, we have already considered a prospective sympathy judgement where the judges have to decide whether a particular act is criminal or not. Nevertheless, the High Court in its decision moves from the merits of a particular case to formulating a rule which will influence future decisions in similar cases. It was shown that because of this impact on future decisions it is not enough to pass a sympathy judgement towards the parties of the case. The judges have to go further and take the perspective of future offenders and victims. This is what we called a prospective sympathy judgement which, though identical in its essential parts to a retrospective sympathy judgement, still has some distinctive characteristics.

Keywords

Ordinary Citizen Judicial Decision Residence Permit Custom Code Legal Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    SZRF — No. 13. [1994].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baglai M. ‘We’re Concerned with Law, not Politics’. — Interview in Russia. No. 10. (1997). pp. 12–14.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    SZRF — No. 13. [1994]. Art. 3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Constitution of the Russian Federation. [1993]. Art. 125 (2).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SZRF — No. 21. [1997] St. 2542. — Decision of 20 May, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SZRF — No. 12. [1998] St. 1458. — Decision of 11 March, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
  8. 11.
    SZRF — No. 12. [1998] St. 1458. — Decision of 11 March, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Ibid.. para 1 of the Decision.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Constitution of the Russian Federation. Art. 35 (3), 55 (3).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    SZRF — No. 12. [1998] St. 1458. — Decision of 11 March, 1998. Para. 6 of the Findings.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Ibid., Para. 5–6 of the Findings.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
  14. 17.
    SZRF — No. 12. [1998] St. 1458. — Dissenting opinion of Judge Vitruk.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    VKS — No. 2. [1998], 19. — Decision of 15 January, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    See: Baglai M. ‘We’re Concerned with Law, not Politics’. — Interview in Russia. No. 10. (1997). pp. 12–14. See also a later case in which the restrictions were unanimously declared unconstitutional: SZRF — No. 6[1998] — St 783. — Decision of 2 February 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    VKS — No. 2. [1998], 19. — Decision of 15 January, 1998. — Para. 1 of the Decision.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    Constitution of the Russian Federation. Art. 19 (2).Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    ibid., Art. 27 (2).Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    ibid., Art. 55 (3).Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    VKS — No. 2. [1998], 19. — Decision of 15 January, 1998. — Para. 4 of the Findings.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    Ibid., para 1 of the Decision.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    VKS — No. 2. [1998], 19. — Decision of 15 January, 1998. — Dissenting opinion of Judge Aebzeiev.Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    SZRF — No. 30. [1998] St. 3800. — Decision of 17 July, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation. — Ed. by Academic B. N. Topormin. — Moscow: Jurist, 1997. — P. 359.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    Decisions of the Court of 18.02.1997; 01.04.1997; 02.07.1997; 11.11. 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    SZRF — No. 30. [1998] St. 3800. — Decision of 17 July, 1998. — Para. 2 of the Findings.Google Scholar
  28. 31.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawStavropol State UniversityStavropolRussia
  2. 2.Commercial Law and EthicsMae Jo UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations