Speech at Meeting with Constitutional Court Judges.Part 2
December 11, 2009
Barvikha, Moscow Region

Выступление на встрече с судьями Конституционного Суда
11 декабря 2009 года
Московская область, Барвиха

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV:

If you allow, I will say a few words, because you had some interesting things to say, and as a lawyer I cannot but comment on them.

First, concerning the nature of the Constitutional Court itself, this will no doubt be the subject of debate for years still to come. You called it an extraordinary court. I began to ask myself, do I see it as such or not in my understanding of things? On the one hand, the term Extra ordinem, which dates back to Roman law, designates things that are outside the existing orders framework. But the Constitutional Court, of course, is not outside the legal framework. It acts in accordance with the Constitution and in accordance with the Law On the Constitutional Court.

At the same time, its jurisdiction is absolutely unique. It is not part of some kind of fixed hierarchy of courts or ministerial hierarchy, as exists in other countries. I say this not so much for the sake of defining the courts nature as for underscoring the importance of the courts rulings on various issues.

You gave the example of legal incapacity. This was an issue that came in for attention during the Soviet times too, though it was written about less then, and in the post-Soviet period. I remind you (the media, not the judges, of course), that incapacity is a legal and not a medical state. This or that mental illness is a medical state. There are some big differences between the two concepts. First, incapacity is a state that an individual acquires on the basis of a court ruling, and it can also be annulled by a court ruling, whereas mental illnesses, as we know, are something different in nature, something related to biological or other processes, depending on how we explain human nature.

I think therefore that what you said on this matter today, what you said on the possibility for the individual concerned or their representative to have their say in cases examining legal incapacity is a step forward in guaranteeing human rights and freedoms. I think this is an extremely useful decision, as are the decisions concerning administrative arrest and a number of other issues.

You know, I am working a lot on improvements to our criminal and corrections laws right now, first of all because they need to be modernised, like everything else in our country, and secondly because, as I see it, the legislators have not made full use of the whole range of possibilities at our disposal. I recently saw draft provisions from the tsarist period on sentences that could be given. This is not to suggest that this should be cause for some kind of delight, but it is nevertheless welcome to see what a broad range of options judges had for taking measures against individuals and their property. We are a lot more cautious now it seems, a lot more restricted in our options, and I am not sure this is a good thing.

Looking at things in terms of the social implications, I think that the range of sentencing options options that do not necessarily involve imprisonment but place various other sorts of limitations on individuals – should be broader. Your decisions demonstrate this too, because sentences either have to come under criminal law provisions, or be something else again. There cannot be any overlapping, any grey areas here. If an individual has not been sentenced under criminal law provisions, then why are this or that limitations placed on him? In short, this is an area that needs to be put in order.

Concerning the Constitutional Courts definitions, I do not want to jump ahead. We can definitely discuss this issue in light of what you said. In any case, I think that what you said on defining the uninterrupted nature of the legal process, at least as far as the Constitutional Court is concerned, requires close attention, because a simplistic interpretation of this notion could be clearly damaging to constitutional legal proceedings.

You mentioned the move [the Constitutional Courts move from Moscow to St Petersburg]. I think this was indeed a big upheaval for the judges. I hope that everything has settled down now, and I hope that you have all been provided with excellent working conditions, although I know that you all have your own families, habits and attachments. But at the same time, albeit in an indirect way, this move gives an added guarantee of the Constitutional Courts independence in carrying out legal proceedings. This autonomy gives it the chance to examine all different matters in calmer and more balanced fashion.

http://www.kremlin.ru

Duration : 0:5:54

Read the rest of this entry »