On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approachesPart 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibilityOf heads of courts (section 1)2

In the first part of this article (“Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?”) the modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court’s staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Gosudarstvo i pravo
Published
2024-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31857/s1026945224040044
Primary Topic
Legal and Policy Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approachesPart 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibilityOf heads of courts (section 1)2

Mikhail I. Kleandrov
Gosudarstvo i pravo
Legal and Policy Issues
article

On modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct: Law enforcement practice, general approachesPart 2. On the problems of disciplinary responsibilityOf heads of courts (section 1)2

Mikhail I. Kleandrov
article en

Abstract

In the first part of this article (“Termination of the powers of a judge for a serious offense after the constitutional innovations of 2020 – constitutional or disciplinary liability?”) the modern problems of the mechanism of judges’ responsibility for disciplinary misconduct were considered. This second part of this article examines the current problems of the organizational and legal mechanism of disciplinary responsibility of heads (chairmen and deputy chairmen) of courts. Attention is drawn to the fact that the status of heads of courts is twofold: on the one hand, they are judges who directly administer justice, on the other hand, heads of a judicial body with powers and responsibilities to organize the work of the court (to ensure, within their powers, financial, material, resource, information and other parties), the implementation of general management of the activities of the court’s staff, and most importantly, to ensure the judicial and effective operation of the court on the principles of justice. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation (and even partly the Constitution of the Russian Federation) provides for the responsibility of heads of courts for gross misconduct, which does not qualify as disciplinary, and the penalty for it is one – early termination of the powers of the head of the court, and in some cases the powers of a judge, without the possibility of applying other, less severe, penalties (penalties). It is proposed to formalize some new, real-life functions of the heads of courts with the establishment of a mechanism for their non-fulfillment. It is proposed to introduce the institution of the oath of the head of the court (separate from the oath of the judge) with the introduction of liability for violation of this oath, in particular for interference in the judicial activities of judges of the court headed by this head. Other proposals are also being made.

Gosudarstvo i pravo(4)
Institute of State and Law (RU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Legal and Policy Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.