The Supreme Court approved the rules for publishing extra-procedural appeals to Supreme Court judges
On 14 August 2015, the chairman of the Supreme Court (SC) of the Russian Federation, Vyacheslav Lebedev, approved Regulation number 681/kd, which deals with extra-procedural appeals of citizens and organizations to SC judges. The main objective of the regulation is to exclude the possibility of influencing the judges outside of the courtroom. The other purposes of the change are to strengthen the credibility of the judiciary, to increase the citizens’ trust in the justice system, to bolster the principles of the independence and objectivity of SC adjudication judges, and to inform the trial participants promptly about extra-procedural appeals to the SC.
An extra-procedural appeal is any information about a case brought to a SC judge, president, deputy, or other court official in a manner inconsistent with the procedural law that is relevant to the case. These are messages with requests, complaints, and indignant accusations of unfairness that aim to change the opinion of a judge hearing a case. They also may attempt to shift the direction of a case or to speed up the process.
These messages create pressure on judges, interfere with the normal functioning of the judiciary, and lead to the demoralization of the judiciary staff. A judge should form his opinion in a case only on the basis of the data the court obtained in the prescribed form. Judges should not consider any additional information, and for this purpose, it is advisable that the courts limit any extraneous material. Publicity will become the weapon against extra-procedural appeals. The SC now will publish the appeals on its official website along with the details about their origin, even if the senders are not parties to the dispute. The judge hearing the case will decide to publish the extra-procedural appeals. Other bodies will not supervise their publication because the initiative of the judges, since they are the ones to deal with these kinds of messages, should be enough to achieve the stated objective of having such appeals cease.
The assumption is that now individuals contemplating contacting the court, outside of the legal process, will realize that there is the risk of adverse consequences from having information about their appeal published, including their name or the name of their organization. As a result, they will refrain from contacting the court. The abolished Supreme Arbitration Court similarly published extra-procedural appeals, and the Moscow Arbitration Court and Supreme Arbitration Court (SAC) of the Moscow Region also do so to help reduce the total number of appeals they receive.
The changes are fully consistent with the general idea of openness and transparency in judicial proceedings. SAC previously began the policy, and now the highest court is renewing this practice. The arbitration courts, with their recorded hearings, broadcast sessions of the Presidium of the Russian Federation, and so on, have accumulated extensive positive experience in this regard. The courts of general jurisdiction face more difficulties implementing such practices because they are numerous, and they need more time to arrange public broadcasts. However, the Belgorod Regional Court already is conducting online broadcasts of court hearings, and in the future, online sessions of the courts of general jurisdiction should become commonplace.
In general, measures to increase the transparency of the judicial system have made a positive shift in the fight against the practice of individuals, organizations, and officials undesirably influencing the judges.
The regulation on the publication procedure of information about extra-procedural appeals can be found here.
