ANTI-LEGISLATION AS THE RESULT OF THE JUDICIAL POWER IRRESPONSIBILITY

In the article, the attention is given to the court practice event that unpredictably contradicts the legislation. An example of the court’s decision in relation with a specific case is given, which demonstrates the application of the legal norms in direct contradiction to the clear legal provisions not allowing for a different interpretation or for the legislator’s discretion. This application of law gains a insuperable legal approval when the Judge of the RF Supreme Court makes a decision to refuse to transfer the cassation appeal to the cassational court (and the supervisory appeal – to the arbitration court) with no examining the merits of the cassation appeal arguments and not giving the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal. The typical character of such breaches of the procedural law is proved (Item 5 of Article 401.10 of the RF Criminal procedural Code, Item 5 of Article 383 of the RF Civil Procedural Code, Item 5 of Part 2 of Article 324 of the RF Administrative Procedure Code).

The RF Constitutional Court regularly makes decisions on the compliance of Item 5 of Article 401.10 of the RF Criminal Procedural Code and Item 5 of Article 383 of the RF Civil Procedural Code with the RF Constitution, equating the obligation and the liability, and this complies with the positive juridical liability notion. The never ceasing stream of complaints about the unconstitutionality of these law provisions is an evidence of the problem growing worse. The article justifies the supposition that the solution for this legacy problem is found exceptionally in the concretizing the “old” notions of the legal liability, but not in the new definitions of the legal liability which within their boundaries give a chance to the actual lawlessness to turn to a reasonable phenomenon based on some suitable understanding of law. The variants have been proposed for solving the problem based on the understanding of the juridical liability as the realization of the sanction and the necessity to make a conclusion about the absence of the juridical liability (irresponsibility) when revealing the absence of sanctions and/ or the mechanism of their realization for the failure to follow the obligations and non-observance of prohibitions.