The administrative body of the Russian Empire is the highest judicial instance. Formation of courts in the Russian Empire
Topic 7. The state and law of Russia during the period of the disintegration of the feudal system and the growth of capitalist relations (I half of the 19th century)
Test #1
1. What administrative body of the Russian Empire was the highest court?
B) justice college
B) Ministry of Justice
2. What did M.M. Speransky in his reform project?
A) introduce a constitutional monarchy
C) introduce the system of a constitutional republic
3. What system was to be established in Russia according to the project of P.I. Pestel?
A) a constitutional monarchy
B) democratic republic
B) autocratic monarchy
4. What transformations were prepared by the Decembrists in the event of the victory of the uprising
A) the transfer of all land to the peasants for free use, the resignation of all ministers, the dispersal of the Senate
B) the transfer of all power to the peasant communities, the abolition of the monarchy
C) the proclamation of democratic freedoms through the Senate, the abolition of serfdom, the convening of the Constituent Assembly
5. What category of the population of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Did you belong to the semi-privileged classes?
A) personal nobles
B) tradesmen
B) Cossacks
6. What form of government was Russia supposed to take according to the project of N. Muravyov?
A) a democratic republic
B) autocratic monarchy
B) a constitutional monarchy
7. What administrative units did the Russian Empire consist of in the first half of the 19th century?
A) governorship - voivodeship - county
B) voivodship - province - district
C) governor-general - governorate - county
8. In what year was the decree on free cultivators issued?
B) 1812
9. What authority, conceived by M.M. Speransky, was never discovered in Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
A) Council of Ministers
B) Council of State
A) unicorns
B) Cossacks
B) the clergy
Test #2
1. What did M.M. Speransky?
A) to give peasants the right to acquire movable and real estate into the property
B) free the peasants without land
C) give the peasants the right to leave the landlords
2. What category of the population of Russia in the first half of the XIX century. Relate to taxable estates?
A) state peasants
B) Cossacks
B) unicorns
3. According to what principle was the activity of the central executive authorities according to the ministerial reform of Alexander I?
A) on the principle of collegiality
B) on the principle of unity of command
C) according to the principle of democratic centralism
4. Which institution was to be responsible for internal security according to the Manifesto on the "General Establishment of Ministries" (1811)?
A) security department
B) Ministry of Police
B) Police Department under the Ministry of the Interior
5. According to the ministerial reform of Alexander I
A) ministers were appointed by the State Council and were responsible only to it
B) ministers were elected by employees of the ministry and were responsible only to them
C) ministers were appointed by the emperor and were responsible only to him
6. Decree on free cultivators of 1803:
A) granted personal freedom to state peasants
B) consolidated the privileges of single-palace peasants
C) allowed the landowners to release their peasants into the wild for a ransom
7. What were the results of the administrative reforms of Alexander I?
A) creation of a ministerial administration
B) creating a system local government- zemstvos
C) the creation of His Majesty's Own Chancellery
8. Who held the supreme legislative, executive and judicial power in the country?
A) emperor
B) State Council
B) the Senate
9. In what years was the ministerial reform carried out under Alexander I?
A) in 1810-1811
B) in 1807-1810
B) in 1809-1822
10. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestel suggested:
A) division of land into communal and private, equality of all citizens before the law
B) the transfer of all land to state property while maintaining landownership
C) the transfer of all land to the peasants
Test #3
1. What functions did the State Council, established in 1810, receive?
A) legislative
B) executive
A) clergy
B) tradesmen
B) Cossacks
3. What was the highest administrative body in Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
A) Committee of Ministers
B) Council of State
B) the Senate
4. When was the State Council established?
B) in 1815
5. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestelya assumed that the highest legislative body in Russia would be:
A) parliament
B) people's assembly
B) Zemsky Sobor
6. What is a "Secret Committee"?
A) secret police
B) censorship committee
C) the close circle of Alexander I, which influenced his policy
7. Decree of December 12 (24), 1801 allowed persons of free states (merchants, petty bourgeois, state peasants) to acquire:
A) land without serfs
B) land and serfs
B) state factories
8. What did the project of the peasant reform of 1819 by the Minister of Finance D.A. Guriev?
A) the destruction of the community and the creation of farms in Russia
B) the preservation of landownership
C) the liberation of peasants without land
9. "Russian Truth" P.I. Pestelya assumed that the executive authority in Russia would be:
A) folk assembly
B) sovereignty
B) noble assembly
10. According to the draft of the first Russian constitution of 1820, prepared by N.N. Novosiltsev, Russia was turning into:
A) a parliamentary republic
B) an unlimited monarchy
B) a constitutional monarchy
Test #4
1. In 1837-1841. P.D. Kiselev carried out an administrative reform, as a result of which the state peasants:
A) became legally free landowners
B) fell under the rule of the landowners
C) moved to the category of monastic peasants
2. Chief Prosecutor of the Synod:
A) appointed by the king
B) was elected by the members of the spiritual college
C) was secretly elected at the local Bishops' Council
3. Which peasants were affected by the reform carried out by P.D. Kiselev?
A) privately owned
B) peasants of Western Russian provinces
B) state
4. Who carried out the codification of Russian legislation in the 1830s?
A) M.M. Speransky
B) V.P. Kochubey
C) A.Kh. Benkendorf
5. What political police body was created under Nicholas I?
A) III branch of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery
B) Secret order
B) secret office
6. Who in the reign of Nicholas I received an advantage in the system in the administrative authorities?
A) Council of State and Senate
B) Committee of Ministers, ministries
C) The Emperor's own office
7. In 1826, the following was created:
A) essential advice
B) Council at the highest court
C) His Majesty's Own Office
8. In what year was the State Council established?
B) in 1801
9. Regulatory legal act adopted in 1802:
A) "On the establishment of ministries"
B) provincial reform
B) the charter of the deanery
10. At the beginning of the XIX century. The role of higher judicial institution performed:
A) Council of State
B) Committee of Ministers
Test #5
1. A priority in Russia in the first half of the XIX century. became the coding:
A) laws on the judiciary and legal proceedings
B) local laws
B) criminal laws
2. Who, continuing the work of their predecessors on the codification of Russian law, began to insist on the creation of a code of laws, and not a new code?
A) Nicholas I
B) Paul I
C) Catherine II
3. Art. 1 of the Basic Laws, the idea was formulated:
A) the autocratic power of the Emperor of Russia
B) unlimited power Senate
C) infringement of the rights of local governments
4. Chief administrative body in the province was:
A) captain
B) foreman
B) governor
5. Legislation distinguished between supreme and subordinate administration. What governing body was the Council of State?
A) supreme
B) subordinates
B) separate
6. What functions did the II Department of His Own Imperial Majesty's Chancellery perform?
A) political sleuthing
B) leadership of women's schools and charitable institutions
B) codification of legislation
7. When was the new criminal code “Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments” adopted?
C) 1829
8. Who spent in 1837-1841. reform in relation to the state peasants?
A) A.A. Arakcheev
B) P.D. Kiselev
C) M.M. Speransky
9. What classes did the clergy belong to in Russia?
A) privileged
B) to the semi-privileged
B) to taxes
10. The code of laws was to consist of:
A) 10 sections
B) 8 sections
C) 2 sections
Topic 8. The state and law of Russia during the period of establishment and development of capitalism (second half of the 19th century)
Test #1
1. Who ruled the cities under the city reform of 1870?
A) governors
B) city councils
B) city councils
2. By judicial reform 1864:
A) the equality of all social groups before the law was introduced
B) the principle of the class court was preserved
C) created a special court for the nobility
3. For which category of the population were saved Physical punishment even after the judicial reform of 1864?
A) for merchants
B) for peasants
C) for citizens who had a property qualification below 1 thousand rubles
4. What local governments were established under the reform of 1864?
A) councils of village elders
B) governors
B) county councils
5. What elections were held in the zemstvos under the reform of 1864?
A) straight
B) two-degree
B) multi-layered
6. Under what conditions did the reform of 1861 provide the peasants with land?
A) entirely at the expense of the state treasury
B) free
C) for a ransom with the assistance of the government
7. Who were the zemstvo institutions subordinate to?
A) personally to the king
B) the governor
C) leader of the local nobility
8. What was the head of the mayor on the City Regulations of 1870?
A) the local state administration of the city
B) city council
B) city government
9. To whom was the City Duma directly subordinated according to the City Regulations of 1870?
A) city government
B) the Senate
B) the governor
10. The highest censorship authority in Russia, established in 1872:
A) security department
B) Committee of Ministers
Test #2
1. Who approved the chairmen of zemstvo councils?
A) zemstvo assembly and zemstvo council
B) the Minister of the Interior and the Governor
C) the Emperor and the Senate
2. Who owned the local executive power under the zemstvo reform of 1864?
A) zemstvo assembly
B) zemstvo council
B) noble assembly
3. Whose participation in the court was mandatory under the judicial reform of 18664?
A) a representative of the local government
B) investigator
B) juror
4. Who owned the administrative power in the city self-government according to the City Regulations of 1870?
A) the governor
B) city government
B) city council
5. What became the highest court of cassation in Russia under the judicial reform of 1864?
B) Trial Chamber
B) Ministry of Justice
6. Before the reform of 1861, the landowner ruled the peasants. Who performed these functions after 1861?
A) a government official appointed by the Senate
B) the world, or gathering, headed by the headman
C) the headman, elected by the assembly
7. The reform of 1861 reserved for the landlords:
A) ownership of the courtyard people who previously belonged to them
B) the right to own all the land they own
C) on ½ of the landowner's land
8. One of the main principles of Zemstvo reform:
A) bureaucratic dependence of zemstvo institutions on central state bodies
B) class
B) choice and arrogance
9. What was the function of the zemstvos?
A) local political power
B) performance of police and fiscal functions
C) solution of economic, administrative and cultural issues of local importance
10. What was the name of the city self-government body according to the City Regulations of 1870?
B) magistrate
B) city council
Test #3
1. What major reform was carried out in 1864 following the abolition of serfdom?
A) military
B) urban
B) zemstvo
2. What emphasized the unequal position of the peasants in relation to other classes of Russia in the post-reform period?
A) the use of corporal punishment in relation to the peasants
B) sending only peasants to hard labor
C) the duty of exclusively peasants to carry out military service
3. What did the reform of the judiciary introduce?
A) participation of jurors in criminal trials
B) participation of jurors in political trials
C) the participation of jurors exclusively in all processes
4. Who was deprived of representation in zemstvo institutions?
A) peasants
B) workers and artisans
C) clergy and intellectuals
5. What was established instead of the third branch, abolished in 1880?
A) security department
B) State Police Department
B) Ministry of Police
6. Law on zemstvo chiefs 1889:
A) forbade the massacre of the peasants
B) strengthened the powers of the volost court
C) abolished the magistrate's court
7. When did the law on zemstvo chiefs come out?
B) in 1901
8. Who was deprived of elective representation in zemstvos according to the Regulations on provincial and zemstvo institutions of 1890?
A) peasants
B) intelligentsia
B) workers
9. In what year was serfdom abolished?
B) in 1869
10. executive body city government was:
A) city council
B) Zemstvo administration
B) City government
Test #4
1. Representatives of the bourgeoisie and some of the liberal landowners demanded:
A) prohibit the transfer of peasants to the category of urban residents
B) prohibit taking former serfs to enterprises as civilian workers
C) the abolition of the corvée system and the transition to civilian labor
2. The 1st Congress of the RSDLP was held in:
B) 1892
3. Police reform was carried out in:
B) 1862
4. The administrative body of city self-government was:
A) city council
B) Zemstvo administration
B) City government
5. The executive body of city self-government was:
A) city council
B) Zemstvo administration
B) City government
6. Judicial reform was carried out by the publication of four important laws: the Establishment of Judicial Institutions, the statutes of civil and criminal justice, the Statute of Punishments. According to these laws, the judges were declared:
A) irreplaceable
B) replaceable
B) appointed
7. What functions did the crown court perform in criminal cases?
A) set a specific penalty
B) conducted preliminary consideration of cases
B) participated in the investigation
8. Judgments in criminal cases of which courts were not subject to appeal, but entered into legal effect immediately?
A) district courts
B) crown courts
B) magistrates' courts
9. Who hears appeals against district court decisions?
A) local courts
B) judicial chamber
B) county courts
10. The Prosecutor's Office was headed by:
A) Minister of Justice
B) burgomaster
B) judge
Test #5
1. According to the principle of the presumption of innocence, any person was presumed innocent:
A) until his guilt is established by the court
b) until he is arrested
C) until he confesses to the crime
2. An important innovation of the judicial reform in Russia was considered:
A) the introduction of the prosecutor's office
B) the introduction of the bar
B) the creation of a city council
3. The most important in the military reform of 1874 was:
A) the abolition of recruitment kits, the establishment of compulsory military service
B) the abolition of compulsory military service
C) tougher recruiting sets
4. That at the end of the XIX century. called the merchant government?
A) a state institution that was engaged in the supervision of merchants, taxation
B) a city organization elected by a meeting of merchants, which registered trading houses, had the right to enter the Ministry of Finance with representations
C) merchant club, recreation center, business communication
5. At the end of the XIX century. in Russia, the county was administratively divided into:
A) communities
B) mills
6. Who headed in Russia such an administrative unit as a camp?
A) a bailiff
B) constable
B) overseer
7. According to the judicial reform of 1864, local courts included:
A) volost, justices of the peace
B) district courts
B) judicial chambers
8. Zemstvos created as a result of the Zemstvo reform of 1864 were:
A) local governments
B) legislative bodies
B) executive bodies
9. Who was the chairman of the Council of Ministers, which existed since November 1861?
A) governor
B) prime minister
B) an emperor
10. In the Russian Empire, a large city was administratively divided into:
B) plots
The Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 10) defines: "State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of division into legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative, executive and judicial authorities are independent."
The independence of the judiciary in Russia is based on the theory of separation of powers, which was developed in the first half of the 18th century by the French educator C. L. Montesquieu. The theory of separation of powers is a political principle according to which power in the state is divided between independent, separate bodies - parliament, government and courts.
Judicial branch represents, in accordance with the theory of separation of powers, a system of judicial bodies of the state that administer justice.
Judicial power is exercised by special state bodies - courts (Article 11 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The special position of the courts in the state mechanism is predetermined by the tasks facing them, responsibility, the nature of the activity, in the course of which the rights and freedoms of citizens, the rights and legitimate interests various bodies, institutions and organizations.
In order to successfully exercise the judicial power, the law gives the courts all the necessary and sufficient powers. Judicial power in Russia belongs to the courts forming a single judicial system. Its organization is based on the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which provides for the appointment of judges of the highest judicial bodies - the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court, as well as judges federal courts and determines that the judicial system of the Russian Federation is established by the Constitution and the federal law "On the judiciary".
Judicial power is authorized to exercise only the courts that are part of the judicial system of Russia. The creation of emergency courts is not allowed (Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The unity of the judicial system finds its expression in the commonality of the tasks of all courts to ensure the rule of law, protect constitutional order, rights and freedoms of citizens and other social values; unity of principles of organization and activity; in the application by the courts of the same substantive and procedural laws; in the unity of the legal status of judges; in instance and other relationships between lower and higher courts; in order to finance the judiciary through federal budget. The social purpose of the courts is to ensure the proper legal regime in all areas of public life. According to their tasks, the courts are law enforcement agencies, and they own leading place among other state bodies whose activities are aimed at strengthening law and order.
Judicial power is exercised by various legal means in the following forms:
1. Through constitutional proceedings, i.e., resolving cases on the compliance with the Constitution of federal laws, regulations of the President, chambers of the federal assembly and other acts (Article 3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court)
2. Through the administration of justice by the courts general jurisdiction, i.e. Consideration and resolution of civil and criminal cases and cases of administrative offenses- in the forms of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings.
3. By arbitrating disputes arising from civil relations(economic disputes) or from legal relations in the field of management, i.e. Arbitration proceedings.
Judicial power is exercised on the basis of and strictly in accordance with the procedural law. Detailed regulation litigation and the exact fulfillment by the court of all procedural requirements guarantee the correct establishment of the factual circumstances of the case and the issuance of a lawful and reasoned decision on this basis. The independence of the judiciary means that the courts act independently, without any bossing and subordination, on their own, having all the necessary powers to carry out their functions, which they are vested with by law. Court decisions do not require any approval. A verdict or decision that has entered into legal force has the force of law in a particular case and is binding on everyone throughout the country.
The separation of the judiciary is as follows. The court occupies a special position in the state mechanism, which is due to the peculiarities of the functions performed, the specific conditions and procedure for its activities. The courts are not part of any other system of state bodies, they are organizationally not subordinate to anyone.
The exclusivity of the judiciary finds its expression in the fact that it is exercised only by the courts that are part of the judicial system of Russia. Each of the forms of legal proceedings is carried out by the appropriate, competent courts. The specificity of the tasks of the three branches of the judicial system (the Constitutional Court, courts of general jurisdiction, arbitration courts) determines the features of their organization and activities. The courts of different branches cannot mutually entrust each other with the exercise of their powers. An important feature of the judiciary is the participation of representatives of the people in the administration of justice. The constitutional provision on the right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice (Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) is being developed in judicial and procedural laws (Articles 10, 11, 18, 80-88 of the Law on the Judiciary and Articles 15, 250, 420-466 of the Criminal Procedure Code) It implemented by participation in the consideration and resolution of court cases of people's assessors, jurors and representatives public organizations and work teams. One of mandatory features judicial power is the imperious nature of the powers of the court. This is manifested in the fact that the requirements and orders of judges in the exercise of their powers are binding on all state bodies, organizations and other legal entities and citizens. The fulfillment of the requirements of the court and the execution of its decisions are ensured by the power of the state.
The principles of justice are at the heart of the organization of the activities of the courts. They determine not only the organization itself, the structure of the judiciary - the procedure for the formation of the judiciary, the legal status of judges, the structure and powers of the courts, but also the organization of the process of administering justice. The principles of justice in the Russian Federation are:
1) The administration of justice only by the court.
2) The administration of justice in strict accordance with the law.
3) Regulations on the procedure for appointing judges.
4) The right of citizens to judicial protection.
5) Equality of citizens before the court and the law.
6) Independence of judges and their subordination only to the law.
7) Collective nature of the consideration of cases and the sole administration of justice. Participation in the administration of justice of representatives of the people.
8) Public trial of cases in all courts.
9) National language of legal proceedings.
10) Equality of the parties and competitive process.
11) Providing the suspect and the accused with the right to defense.
12) Presumption of innocence.
13) Comprehensive, complete and objective examination of the circumstances of the case.
14) Judicial review
Any court exercises judicial power and justice not in full composition of its judges. So, the case can be considered on the merits (at first instance or as a court of first instance) by: a single judge, a professional judge and two people's assessors, a panel of three professional judges or a jury (Article 10 of the Law "On the Judicial System" and Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure code).
The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the laws on the judiciary determine which courts are included in the Russian judicial system. One of the signs of the judicial system is its construction in accordance with the national - state structure and administrative - territorial division country, as well as in accordance with the organization of the Armed Forces or special "judicial" territories.
Arbitration courts, in accordance with the federal law "On Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation" dated April 5, 1995, identified ten federal arbitration courts whose jurisdiction extends to the following federal districts: Volga - Vyatka, East - Siberian, Far East, West - Siberian, Moscow, Volga, North - Western, North - Caucasian, Ural, Central. These federal arbitration courts act as a cassation instance in relation to arbitration courts functioning in the said territorial structures as courts of first instance and appellate instance.
project federal law"On the judicial system of the Russian Federation" provides for the creation of federal district courts of general jurisdiction. It is planned to create these courts on the basis of the current courts of the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as the Supreme Courts of the republics within the Russian Federation.
The court in Russia in the X-XI centuries, as the oldest form of judicial power
The oldest form of judiciary was the court of the community, whose members equally had the rights and duties of tyan in litigation Oh. The competitiveness of the parties persisted for a long time, so the process in Ancient Rus' is called adversarial (less often - accusatory). He has such distinctive features, as the relative equality of the parties and their activity in the consideration of the case in the collection of evidence and evidence. At the same time in the X-XI centuries. the process is being strengthened, where the prince's administration played a leading role: they initiated the process, collected information themselves and passed a sentence, often associated with death. The prototype of such a process can be the trial of Princess Olga over the ambassadors of the Drevlyans during the period of the uprising or the trial of the princes over the rebels in 1068 and 1113.
The reasons for the initiation of the process were the complaints of the plaintiffs, the capture of the offender at the scene of the crime, the fact of the commission of the crime. One of the forms of the beginning of the process was the so-called cry: a public announcement of the loss of property and the beginning of the search for the kidnapper (usually at the auction). A three-day period was given for the return of the stolen person, after which the person in whom the sought-for things were found was considered guilty and had to return the property and prove the legality of its acquisition. It can be assumed that different types of evidence were used: oral, written, witness, evidence. Eyewitnesses of the incident were called vidokami. There were rumors that some researchers consider eyewitnesses by ear, others - only free people could be witnesses of the good fame of the accused: they don’t add obedience to a serf, since he is not free, Russkaya Pravda says. The equality of the parties in the process dictated the involvement of so many free ones in the evidence.
Only in small litigation and out of necessity it was possible to refer to the purchase. If there were no free ones, then they referred to the boyar tiun, and do not add up to others (Article 66 of the Long Truth).
Russian Pravda provides for a special form of detection of lost property - a vault. If, after a cry, the missing thing was found in a person who declared himself a bona fide purchaser, a set began. The person from whom the thing was purchased was indicated, he, in turn, pointed to another, and so on. Who could not indicate the source of the acquisition, was considered a thief, had to return the thing (cost) and pay a fine. Within one territorial unit the code went to the last person, but if residents of another territory (city) participated in it, it went to a third person who paid increased compensation and started the code at their place of residence (Articles 35-39 of the Long Truth).
Another procedural action - persecution of the trace - was a search for the Criminal in the wake. In the event of a murder, the presence of traces of the criminal in any community obliged its members to pay wild vira or to search for the guilty person. When traces were lost on the wastelands and roads, the search ceased (Article 77 of the Long Truth).
The norms of Russian Truth, in force in the Russian principalities in the 12th-15th centuries, continued to be used in the trial of the period under review. While maintaining the adversarial principles in the judicial process, the role and activity of the state administration increased. The significance of the judicial duel has grown everywhere, with the impossibility of clarifying the pistons in other ways. Ordeals became a thing of the past because they contradicted the Christian understanding of finding out the truth, judgmental oaths were deprived of pagan paraphernalia. At the same time, the role written documents, especially in land disputes and litigation.
For the era preceding Russkaya Pravda, the neighboring community was a characteristic association of the rural population. She grew up in the process of decomposition of the former family community. Private property on the ground gradually decomposes the previously homogeneous mass of community members: along with the wealthy, there are poor people who have lost their plots. Leaving the community, in search of work, they became dependent on wealthy landowners - princes and boyars.
The most ancient Pravda (Yaroslav's Court) preserved traces of tenacious customs of the tribal system, which had not yet been eliminated in the early feudal state. Art. 1 also recognizes the institution of blood vendetta for murder, but introduces a limitation on the circle of avengers by the closest relatives of the murdered. To kill the husband of the husband, then to take revenge on the brother of the brother, or the sons, or the brother of the child, or the sister of the sons. But then the princely law establishes that in the absence of an avenger, the killer must pay a fine in favor of the prince: if there is no one to take revenge, then 40 hryvnia per head.
The structure of the process according to Russkaya Pravda is undeniably adversarial (or accusatory), which is typical of the era of early feudalism. Russian Truth described special forms pre-trial establishment of relations between the victim (future plaintiff, accuser) and the alleged defendant (accused). This is the so-called vault and persecution of the trace. The code consisted in finding the proper defendant by the plaintiff by means of a cry, a code in the strict sense and an oath.
True, the existence of Kievan Rus judicial duel is denied by many researchers. Their argument, which seems very strong, is the lack of mention of the duel in Russkaya Pravda. But at the same time, the indications of Arab writers, similar to the one just given, and the agreement with the Germans, 1229 (Articles 15 and 16), and legal sayings (There are two wills in the field, whom God will help) confirm the antiquity of the origin and the strength of the institution court fight.
One can only speculate about the reasons for the absence of indications of a duel in Russkaya Pravda. It is impossible to deny the possibility of some influence, so to speak, of a mechanical order on the text of Pravda by the clergy. The duel, which undoubtedly took place in the life of Kievan Rus in the 11th-12th centuries, should have been reflected in modern laws and in their first codification - in Russkaya Pravda. But then he could disappear from the pages of this collection or almost disappear, as the most contrary to the spirit of Christianity, iodine by the pen of the first pious scribes of the monument.
Judicial power in Russia in the XVII-XVIII centuries
The Council Code of 1649 contained an injunction that justice should be administered fairly. However, under the conditions of a feudal state, such a prescription was mostly an empty declaration.
In the development of feudal legal proceedings and procedural law for the first half of the 17th century. characteristic is the coexistence of adversarial (accusatory) and investigative (investigative) processes, with a clear predominance of the latter over the former. The growth of the class struggle and the strengthening of the absolutist features of the monarchy brought to the fore the search inquisition process, as the most effective remedy suppression of popular uprisings and strengthening the rule of law and the interests of the ruling class. At the same time, there was a well-known difference in the scope of application of both processes. The search party clearly dominated political and criminal proceedings, while the adversarial one prevailed in civil cases. However, in the absence of a sufficiently defined distinction between criminal and civil law, criminal and civil process the indicated division of the spheres of application of the adversarial and investigative processes should not be absolutized. Usually disputes over contracts of sale, loan, luggage, as well as insults, malfeasance, murders committed not for the purpose of robbery, including during trials, were considered according to the rules of the accusatory process.
Political crimes and the most serious criminal ones (robbery, robbery, tatba and related murders), as well as serf cases about serfs, peasants, estates and estates were considered using the search process. 2 Judicial Law in the Code constituted a special set of norms regulating the organization of the court and the process. Even more definitely than in the Sudebniks, there was a differentiation into two forms of the process: the trial and the search.
This is fully reflected in the Code of 1649. Issues of the judiciary and legal proceedings are covered in it in the X chapter On the Court, the largest, containing 287 articles. Legal regulations are given in Chapter X not by branches of law, but by objects of offenses. Therefore, in the same article, and sometimes in a group of neighboring articles devoted to the same issue, the norms of substantive and procedural law, both criminal and civil, are conjugated.
Other important feature legal proceedings of that time, the lack of separation of the court from the administrative bodies. Moreover, it should be emphasized that judicial function was the most important task of the administration; this, presumably, is the reason why judicial and procedural issues received in the legislation before the Code and in the Code detailed regulation.
All judicial bodies of the XVII century. divided into state church and patrimonial. Thus, the system of the judiciary corresponded to the system of public authorities and administration. The Code does not apply to the patrimonial court, although it removes cases of tatba and robbery from its jurisdiction and legitimizes some norms of relations between feudal lords and peasants and serfs.
The state judicial bodies consisted of three instances: 1) provincial, zemstvo institutions, local governors, 2) orders and 3) the court of the Boyar Duma and the tsar. The court of regimental governors and judges with them over military people during their service and regiments was also a kind of state court. The Code, developing the establishment of the Sudebnik of 1550, proclaimed: The court of the Sovereign Tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, to be judged by the boyars and the roundabout and thoughtful people and the deacon, and all orders of people, and judges ... (X, I). Here, in the form of listing ranks and positions, all categories of persons of the state apparatus involved in legal proceedings are named. The most important central judicial link was orders, among which there were judicial (judicial, quarter orders) and orders with special jurisdiction (Zemsky, Local, Robbery, Kholopy).
Supreme Judicial and court of appeal in relation to orders, there were the Boyar Duma and the tsar: And controversial cases, which in orders why it will not be powerful to decide, to contribute from the orders to a report to the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich of All Russia, and to his sovereign boyars and devious and thoughtful people (X, 2). This article may contain another idea - the orders could be incompetent in considering some cases related to the competence of the tsar and the Boyar Duma. 2 A similar situation is envisaged with regard to the local court represented by the voivode or probation headman. Not being able to solve the court case, they are obliged to send it to Moscow, to order, and at the same time send a note to the plaintiff and the defendant about their appearance in court. IN otherwise they were charged proesti, red tape and court fees (X, 130, 131).
The Code regulated the procedure for the work of judges, primarily in orders and in the field. The orders usually had several judges. At the head of some orders was a boyar, or a roundabout, or a duma man with three or four comrades. The Code ordered to solve court cases collegially (to everyone). In the absence of someone due to illness or other good reason, the rest of the judges decided cases on their own (X, 23). For malicious evasion from appearing in the order, for many days the judge was subjected to punishment, which the sovereign would indicate (X, 24). On Sundays, major church holidays and on namesake days, she did not consider any cases in orders, except for the most necessary state affairs (X, 25). The court decision was considered final and could only be reviewed on appeal to a higher authority. Therefore, adding any documents to the court list - new witness statements, etc. after the trial was not allowed. It was prescribed to the judges after the trial by their fiction in the court case to anyone for friendship or unfriendliness ... neither add nor subtract anything ... (X, 21, 22). Following the Sudebnik of 1550, the law provided for the possibility judicial error when the judge sues... without tricks. If this was confirmed, then the penalty that the sovereign would indicate was determined in relation to the judge, and the case was referred to all the boyars for consideration (X, 10). 1 of the Code allowed for the removal of judges by the parties on the grounds of kinship or bias towards one of the litigants, but not otherwise than before the trial. Such complaints were not taken into account after the trial (X, 3,4).
Judicial office work in orders, like any other, ran on clerks and clerks. And we’ll write down court cases in orders for clerks. At the same time, corrections (blackening, scraping) and inscribing between lines were prohibited. The clerk was obliged to put the matter on the table for completion soon. After the court decision, the parties put their hands on the records. Then the clerk rewrote the case in white, and the clerk, checking the white copy, sealed it with his signature. A draft copy was also kept from now on for a dispute. It was forbidden to show the court case to the parties and take it out of the order. If the clerk did this, naming one of the parties, the case was taken away from him and transferred to another clerk (X, II, 13). The clerks kept records of court cases and the collection of court fees in orders and books with the exact date of the hearing of the case. The books were sealed with the signatures of the clerks (X, 128, 129). Such office work was used for less important criminal and civil cases, which were considered in the accusatory process, that is, the court, with the active participation of the parties. TO civil affairs of this kind were lawsuits caused by violation of the terms of contracts of exchange, sale, loan, luggage-transactions that did not require approval by the serf order.
Ch. X of the Code describes in detail the various procedures of the court: the process was divided into the court itself and the execution, that is, the pronouncement of a sentence, a decision. Everyone could be parties in the process: monks, serfs, minors, people accused of sedition and composition and perjury, as well as children against their parents, cannot search.
The mutual attitude of the parties before the trial (call) is determined by the contract; but at the conclusion of the treaty, the authorities intervene much more decisively than in the ancient Russian process. Relationships are established by means of petitions, attached memory and urgent: the first determines the boundaries of the disputed law, the second determines which judge to go to; the third determines the turnaround time. The contractual relations of the parties were gradually removed by the state: for example, the call through added memory gave way in the era of the Code to the call through the letter of invitation (Code X, 100, etc.); the first was retained only for Moscow and its immediate environs. The difference between the consequences of a summons through an added memory and a summons memory and a summons letter was that a person who did not appear in court on a summons of the first kind was immediately accused without trial; on the contrary, the 2nd and 3rd summons letters were sent to those who did not appear on a call of the second kind, but who gave bail on their own, and only after that the one who did not appear was accused without trial; if the defendant was not given bail, then the voivode took him by force through gunners and miners. The contract is necessarily sealed by a surety, bail can be given by force by order of the authorities (Code X, 117,140, 229). Necessary guarantors were neighbors and relatives who constituted mutual responsibility among themselves, which, however, disappeared in the era of the Code. The purpose of the bail was originally not only to present the defendant to the court, but also to secure the claim in the event of his failure to appear; but only the first goal remained in the Code.
The parties may not appear in court in person; they were replaced by natural representatives, relatives and people (Code X, Art. 108,109,149,156,157,185; cf. ukaz.kn.zem.prik.V; XIII,3 and 12); only in the absence of such, free representatives are allowed, who for the most part were serfs (uk.kn.ved.kazn XX) and for whom a power of attorney was not required until 1690. The consequence of this was the insignificance of the rights of attorneys and the easy possibility of restoring settled cases.
At the court itself, the parties submit bidding petitions. The consequence of failure to appear on time for the defendant was the issuance of a non-judicial letter, that is, the assertion of the right for the plaintiff as if the court had taken place; The plaintiff's failure to appear led to the dismissal of the claim. Those who appeared were not to leave the place of the trial under the threat of the same consequences; in 1645 an exception was made from this for cases based on serf deeds. (uk. kn. zem.prik., art. X, 1,3,4; XIII, 4, 5, II; XXXVII, and XLVII; Code, X, 108, 109, 149, 185; XVI, 59; XVIII , 22-23; XX, III, 119).
The relationship of the parties to the court: the parties have only a negative influence on the composition of the court (through the removal of judges). In the era of the Code, the passive role of the judge in the process becomes more and more active.
The evidence that was used and taken into account by the court in the adversarial process was a variety of testimonies (practice required the involvement of at least ten witnesses in the process), written evidence (the most trustworthy of them were officially certified documents).
1. Obedience takes the following forms in the Moscow process:
A) Link from the guilty, when the party refers to one witness with the condition of submitting to the prosecution if the witness testifies against the referrer. The link from the guilty was of unconditional importance for both sides before the era of the judges, because then there was still a field on which the opposite side could cause a rumor. Its always secondary meaning is the accusation of the side that referred to it. The unconditional value of the link, after the field is destroyed, is recognized in the following cases: when one side refers to the father or mother of the other, when referring to several persons (at least 10) servicemen (for a claim up to 50 rubles) and others (for a claim up to 20 rubles .), if these persons show unanimously (Uk. kn. ved. treasury, Art. V, 9; Code X, 158-159, 160, 176).
B) A common reference to the rest of the arbitration decision of disputes is a reference by both parties to the same or to the same rumors. However, the law limits the right of the parties to choose third parties: one cannot refer to people who have heard about the fact, but have not seen it; A common link cannot be a person dependent on one of the parties.
C) Witnesses could be adults; wife against husband, children against parents, serfs against masters could not be witnesses. A witness from the upper classes was preferred to a witness from the lower: the testimony of one person from the noble class (says Herberstein) means more than the testimony of many people of low status (in trans. Anonymous, p. 84). The attendance of a witness is obligatory; from those who did not appear without a good reason, the entire claim, damages and duties are collected (Court of the king, art. 18; ak.jurid., 13).
D) A general search in the grandfathers of the court is allowed in the absence of a general (by name) link or a link from the guilty (uk. kn. ved. treasury, V, 1, 3-6; st. kn. razb. prik. VI). The general search consisted of questioning devious people (not witnesses) about the identity of the suspect or accused; they gave an assessment of personality (good or bad person, criminal or not). This was of particular importance when recognizing the suspect as a well-known dashing person, that is, the most dangerous criminal who systematically committed crimes. A rule was established under which the data of the general search had specific legal consequences. If the majority of respondents recognized the person as a famous dashing person, then additional evidence was not required. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. If, under the same conditions, a qualified majority (two-thirds) said so, then the death penalty was applied.
2. The judgments of God that survived in the Muscovite period are as follows:
A) The field in the era of the Code of Laws is still in common use; it occurs between the plaintiff and the defendant, the rumor and the side, and between the rumors of one side when they are in conflict. The parties must have solicitors and guarantors who, along with third parties, deviate from participation in the battle; the equality of the parties is observed now physical. Hiring (Judg. kings, 13 and 14) is allowed in the same way as in the Pskov doomsday charter. The field is allowed only in personal claims: battle, loan business, arson, murder, robbery, tatba (Judg. 1st, 4-7, 69; Judg. king, 13-14; uk. V, 15). The field disappears imperceptibly at the beginning of the 17th century.
B) Cross-kissing, i.e., the oath of the parties, is allowed in claims exceeding 1 ruble for persons of full age and who have kissed the cross no more than twice in their lives. Its auxiliary value in the field is the same as in the ancient process, the eye gradually replaces the field. The right to swear an oath is decided by lot (Decree. book. prik. slave, court, art. X; Decree. kn.
C) The lot, in addition to the auxiliary (mentioned above) value, in the era of the Code receives an independent one in cases of less than a ruble and in claims against spiritual persons.
3. Written acts in the era of the Code and only serfs have unconditional significance; in the era of the Code, they could be rejected only if the opposing party was criminally charged with forcible repudiation of the act or forgery (street kn. zem. pr., XXIV; Ulozh., X, 246-247).
Judgment: the power of judgments. Previously, in the absence of written records in the personal interest of judges in the process, there was an easy possibility of reinstatement of settled cases. The Code forbids, under pain of punishment with batogs and the payment of pros and delays, the repetition of a claim, if it is the same claim, against the same person; change in property claims individuals subjects of rights, for example, bishops and abbots in church estates, landowners and estate owners in private, is not recognized as a circumstance allowing the restoration of a resolved case. Cases decided by a peace deal require a record of this so that they do not start again (Code, X, 154; XV, 1-5). Judicial decision from the very beginning of the Muscovite state was clothed in the form of a right charter.
With regard to the method of execution of judgments, all personal claims are addressed to the person. Hence the right, the defendant (most often an insolvent debtor) was regularly subjected to corporal punishment by the court, he was beaten with rods on his bare calves. The number of such procedures was supposed to be equivalent to the amount of debt (for a debt of one hundred rubles flogged for a month): here the archaic principle of replacing property liability with personal one sounds clearly. Pravezh was not just a punishment, it was a measure that prompted the defendant to fulfill the obligation (he could have guarantors or he himself could decide to pay the debt).
From the time of the Code, the penalty gradually extends to real estate: to empty estates, from 1656 to empty estates, and from 1685 to all kinds of property (Court. Tsar., Art. 55; zem. pr., X, 7-8; uk. leading treasury art., III, XII and XVI).
The search, or detective, was used in the most serious head cases. A special place and attention was given to crimes, which were declared: The word and deed of the sovereign, that is, in which the state interest was affected. In the wanted list, the plaintiff is the State; this beginning develops gradually: through the prohibition of lynching (Ust. book. razb. prik. 66; Ulozh. XXI, 79), imposing on communities the obligation to find criminals and a large general search; prohibition of litigation in criminal cases and the obligation of a private person to continue the initiated (criminal) claim (Const. On the wanted list, the attitude of the parties before the trial is no longer contractual: instead of attachments, there are notes, inviting letters, an order to arrest and bring the accused and linear letters of order, to local authorities and neighbors to catch the accused. One of the characteristic differences of ancient Russian law is the extensive development of surety in lieu of arrest; usually guarantors were relatives! enniks and members of the same community (see Sudeb. 1st, art. 34-36; ruins. Belg. gr.; Sudeb, kings, 53,54, 70; Appellate Articles 4 and V). The case in the search process could begin with the statement of the victim, with the discovery of the fact of the crime (red-handed) or with the usual slander, not confirmed by the facts of the prosecution (linguistic rumor). After that, they got involved government bodies. The victim filed an appearance (statement), and the bailiff with witnesses went to the scene for an inquiry. The procedural action was a search, that is, the interrogation of all suspects and witnesses.
Own confession and torture. Before the legalizations of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, one's own confession was not necessary and the last way of judicial evidence on the wanted list (construction of the book of parsing, pr. Art. 9; cf. Art. 6), although the forcing of one's own vocation by torture began already in the first period. From the time of the decree of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, torture became the main means of search and was practiced in various forms (mainly in the form of a rack) until the time of Catherine II.
In ch. XXI of the Council Code, for the first time regulates such a procedural procedure as torture. The basis for its application could be the results of the search, when the testimonies were divided: part in favor of the suspect, part against him. In the event that the results of the search were favorable for the suspect, he could be taken on bail, that is, released under the responsibility (personal and property) of his guarantors.
The use of torture was regulated: it could be used no more than three times with a certain break. The testimony given at the torture (slander) had to be cross-checked by other procedural measures(interrogation, oath, search). The testimonies of the tortured were recorded.
In cases of religious and state crimes, torture was applied to all suspects (in the presence of denunciations or slanders), regardless of class. As for other matters, here the representatives of the ruling class had privileges. Torture in these cases was applied to them rarely and only after the results of the general search were unfavorable for them.
Search means: a) red-handed, which is valid only when the thing is taken from the accused because of the lock (st. Beloz. Gr., Art. 11; XXI, 50-57). The ancient unconditional meaning of the red-handed is gradually falling. b) The general search is a remnant of the ancient right of the communities to take part in the court; there is an opinion that the search arises from the obligation of the communities to catch criminals (details of the general search are set out above on p. 15 "Forensic evidence").
The sentence and its execution. On the wanted list, indecisive sentences are possible, precisely in the case of contradictory evidence, and then always in the absence of one's own confession; if there is no own confession, but the search extorts the accused, then this latter, instead of the execution that followed him, is imprisoned for life (Const. if at the search they approve, then the accused is given a clean guarantee with a record that he will no longer steal or break (Code XXI, 29, 36, etc.).
Sentences in search cases are carried out by the forces of the state itself. In relation to criminal cases, the right of the state and the punishment of the criminal gradually triumphs over the right of private plaintiffs (victims) to remuneration.
Judicial Reform of 1864. Its significance and consequences for the institution of the judiciary
period of codification, the judicial system was streamlined, but the order was only on paper. On the national outskirts there were their own courts, military courts, even a special court for the Decembrists. There were inquisitorial beginnings in legal proceedings, there were no clear criteria initiation of the case, the term for the consideration of the case (the consideration of the case could turn into endless red tape), the inequality of the parties. The highest bureaucracy had immunity, which they could lose only by decision of the Council of Ministers and general meeting department. The courts worked inefficiently, only 12% of cases ended in prosecution. The main idea of the reform is the court equal, quick, right. In fact, the changes affected only the procedural law. Material, criminal and civil remained unchanged. Initially, materials on the reform were prepared by the 2nd department of the royal chancellery. The Prussian version is taken as the basis, i.e. reducing the number of instances, adding an element of competition. There were other provisions of the reform, they caused a resonance in society, and ambiguous. State Secretary Zarubny presided over the production of the reform; he took the Catholic (Sardinian) and Hungarian variants of legal proceedings. By the autumn of 1865, the statutes were ready and they were published in the press, to observe the reaction of the population, the reaction was different. In 1864 the statutes were published as laws. The statutes consisted of 4 books: 1. The Charter of Civil Procedure. 2. Charter of criminal proceedings. 3. Establishment of judicial institutions. 4. About punishments imposed by justices of the peace.
The main ideas are: branches of the court as branches of power, publicity, irremovability of judges, elimination of the independence of the justice of the peace for unimportant cases, the abolition of formal evidence, the establishment of a cassation court, the organization of prosecutorial supervision and the emergence of jurors, advocacy, notaries, judicial investigators, etc. Judicial system had 2 levels:
1. General courts. All changes took place in the general courts. General courts freed them from solving petty cases, they resolved disputes about real estate.
2. World justice. They could impose a fine, corporal punishment, but no more. Volost courts stand apart.
Judicial districts were created, they created district courts consisting of 2 chambers, for civil and criminal cases. Jurors worked in criminal divisions. The second instance was the judicial chamber. There were about 10 of them in Russia, they had supervisory functions, were in charge of enforcement proceedings.
Third instance Senate.
Before the reform, the investigation was conducted either by the police or by the court. Now the police have retained the function preliminary inquiry. The judicial investigator was a member of the court, appointed by the Minister of Justice and approved by the emperor, however, like the entire composition of the court. In work, the judicial investigator is under the control of the prosecutor's office.
The prosecutor is independent of the local administration, subordinate to the Minister of Justice and the Emperor. The prosecutor was necessarily informed about the investigation, after the end of the investigation, he could take the case to court, or stop it. Upon receipt of the case to the court, he introduced the defendant and the defense counsel to the personally drawn up act.
The bar is represented by jurors and private attorneys. The jury worked at the court, private ones separately from it. The term "lawyer" did not exist before. The defendant himself chose his lawyer, in a number of cases the presence of a lawyer was mandatory, in the absence of funds, a public defender could be chosen or appointed. Judges of the general courts. The entire composition was appointed by the emperor. The appointment took place only with their consent and all that (see above). The bailiffs appear. Jurors. The lists of jurors consisted of 30 people, each side could reject 6 candidates for no reason. 12 jurors participated in the meeting. This work was free. The jury decided 2 questions:
1. on the reality of the events that gave rise to the accusation:
2. about the guilt of the defendant.
Interestingly, when the first question was answered in the affirmative, the second did not necessarily follow.
The judicial process differed in civil and criminal cases in general and local courts. The criminal process was a mixed investigative and adversarial one. The state, represented by the investigator, began criminal prosecution and led secretly, in the interests of the investigation. But those involved in the case could file complaints with the prosecutor or the court. Main stage court hearing. Where the materials of the preliminary investigation were checked verbally and publicly, the prosecution and the defense are equal in rights. The chairman then explained to the jury the circumstances of the case and the laws relating to this crime. He explained the legal grounds for the strength of evidence in favor of and against the defendant, then the chairman formulated the questions that the jury had to answer. This is a very subtle point, given the legal literacy of the jury, the chairman could formulate questions in different ways.
The civil process is adversarial, the court itself was not involved in finding evidence, it used the evidence provided by witnesses, documents, expertise, expert opinions, specialists. The formal system of evidence is abolished, now by law. In practice, the application of statutes largely depended on the people who implemented these statutes. The dilemma between truth internal and external. Through the eyes of Tolstoy, the chairman of the court led an idle life, mostly immoral, bailiff represented by a man who drank heavily.
Judicial reform of 1917
The peculiarities of the breakdown of the former judicial system and the creation of a new court consisted in the fact that the population in a number of places in the country, without waiting for directives from above, itself began to liquidate the old courts and create new ones. These courts had different names: People's Court, Proletarian Court, Revolutionary Court, Court of Public Conscience, etc. Summarizing the experience of the judicial government, solving the problem of strengthening the Soviet judicial apparatus, its unification, strengthening the rule of law in the state, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a decree on the court, later called decree on court 1. It was published on November 24, 1917. The initial draft of the decree was drawn up in the NKJ with the active participation of P.I. Knocks. The opinion that exists in works on the history of the Soviet court that the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries hampered the adoption of the decree on the court must be rejected as untrue. The draft decree then underwent changes during its discussion in the Council of People's Commissars. This decree abolished the former courts: district courts, judicial chambers, the ruling senate, military, maritime, commercial. The activities of justices of the peace were suspended. The legal profession was liquidated, prosecutor supervision, Institute of Forensic Investigators.
A new judicial system was created: local courts, which acted as a permanent judge and two regular assessors. They had jurisdiction over civil cases with a claim value of up to 3,000 rubles. and criminal with punishment not exceeding 2 years in prison. To defend the revolution, to fight counter-revolution, workers' and peasants' revolutionary tribunals were established, consisting of one chairman and six regular assessors. New courts were created and operated on the following principles: firstly, the election of courts, and secondly, the participation of the population in the administration of justice as assessors. Local judges were to be elected on the basis of direct democratic elections population, and before their appointment - local councils. The same Councils compiled lists of ordinary assessors and determined the order of their appearance at the session. The revolutionary tribunals were to be elected by provincial or city soviets. Former justices of the peace could be elected as local judges. How was it supposed to organize the preliminary investigation and the defense and prosecution at the trial according to this decree? He assigned the temporary preliminary investigation to local judges, thereby violating the democratic principle of separating the investigation from the court. For the production of investigations on cases under the jurisdiction of the revolutionary tribunal, the Soviets created commissions of inquiry. All unblemished citizens of both sexes were admitted as prosecutors and defenders in criminal cases, and from the stage of preliminary investigation, and in civil cases as attorneys. Local courts decided cases in the name Russian Republic and were guided in their decisions and sentences by the laws of the overthrown governments in cases where they were not abolished by the revolution and did not contradict revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness. All laws that contradicted the decrees of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars, as well as programs - at least the RSDLP party and the SR party were recognized as repealed. The revolutionary tribunals did not refer to the previous legislation in their judgments.
The Soviet state, local Soviet and party organs were primarily concerned about the creation of revolutionary tribunals. Behind short term normative acts were issued regulating the organization of tribunals, the procedural order of their activities, jurisdiction, as well as the organization and activities of commissions of inquiry. It should be noted that no such acts regarding general courts have been issued during this time. The first act on the tribunals was the Manual for the organization of revolutionary tribunals, prepared by the NKJ and published in the News of the Central Executive Committee and the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies on November 28, 1917.
December 19, 1917 an instruction from the NKJ to revolutionary tribunals appeared, signed by the then People's Commissar of Justice, the Left Social Revolutionary I.Z. Steinberg. In both of these acts, as a measure of punishment applied by the tribunals, there was no death penalty. From December 1917 until the spring of 1918. there were revolutionary press tribunals composed of three judges without assessors.
On March 7, 1918, a decree On the Court appeared, introducing district people's courts to hear cases that exceeded the jurisdiction of the local people's court. They were not created everywhere and worked poorly. Decisions in civil cases were made by district courts in the composition of three permanent members of the court and four people's assessors, while sentences in criminal cases were made in the composition of 12 assessors and the presiding permanent member of the court. It was supposed to create Court of Cassation. The courts of all instances were allowed to speak in local languages. Preliminary investigations in cases exceeding the jurisdiction of the local court were carried out by commissions of inquiry of three people elected by the Soviets. Under the Soviets, a collegium of legal defenders was created, carrying out both public prosecution and defense.
In May 1918, the Revolutionary Tribunal was created under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to try cases of national importance. In June 1918, the Cassation Department was established under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which considered cassation appeals and protests against the verdicts of the revolutionary tribunals, correcting their mistakes and ensuring a unified criminal policy tribunals of the RSFSR. With the creation of local courts, the tribunals, in accordance with the decree of the Council of People's Commissars On Revolutionary Tribunals of May 4, 1918, were relieved of many criminal cases and had to focus their attention on combating counter-revolutionary crimes. The network of tribunals was sharply reduced. They remained only in large centers: in the capitals, provincial cities, large junction stations and industrial centers. At each tribunal, a panel of prosecutors was established, consisting of at least three persons elected by the Soviets.
Starting with the Decree On the Court 1, two systems of courts were created and operated in the country: the system of general courts and the system of revolutionary tribunals, on common fundamental principles. They were distinguished only by jurisdiction.
It should be noted a very characteristic pattern in the construction of the judiciary in the first months Soviet power. The process of building revolutionary tribunals was ahead of the process of creating local courts. During the period from November 1917 to May 1918, the entire territory of the RSFSR was covered with a network of tribunals. Where there was Soviet power, they were created in almost all regional and provincial cities, in almost all counties and even in a number of volosts and settlements of the RSFSR.
The second regularity was determined by the first. As a result of the fact that the tribunals were created in most of the territory of the republic before the local courts, they had to consider cases not only within their jurisdiction, but also all criminal and sometimes even civil cases. As a result, all the tribunals violated the norms of the Decree On the Court, on the jurisdiction of the tribunals and local courts.
The regularity of the process of creating new judicial bodies in the field was a broad local lawmaking. It was explained by the unusual creative activity of the population involved in social activities a revolution that had no experience state activity, as well as the untimely receipt of normative acts from the center, in some cases their incompleteness, the lack of a clear delimitation of the competence of the central and local bodies of the RSFSR, etc. Only in the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1918 did this issue receive a certain resolution. Article 49 of the Constitution assigned to the jurisdiction of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issues of the judiciary and legal proceedings. However, it must be emphasized that decisive role in the process of creating new judicial bodies on the ground, republican normative acts played.
The institution of the judiciary at the present stage
Unfortunately still traditional weak point the judiciary remains in Russia. The principles of the judiciary and legal proceedings proclaimed by the Constitution are implemented with difficulty. And in this case there is opposition and pressure from other branches of government. Despite the proclaimed legal and social guarantees judges, such as irremovability, immunity, independence, etc. , they very often cannot be fully provided due to the lack of technical and material base. (So the law on the status of judges, which refers to the provision of a judge for half a year of free housing, very often cannot be fulfilled due to the lack of such.) According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the judiciary is three-tier. The highest judicial bodies are Supreme Court RF, Supreme Arbitration Court, Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in civil, criminal, administrative and other cases (Article 126).
The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is the highest judicial body for resolving economic disputes (Article 127).
The Constitutional Court is called upon to exercise control over all state bodies in the Russian Federation. On the conformity of the published regulations concluded international treaties. Also, the Constitutional Court resolves disputes between the federal state authorities of Russia and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (Article 125).
In connection with the admission of Russia to the Council of Europe, the jurisdiction of the European Court now extends to the territory of Russia. It is now the highest judicial body for Russia and its citizens.
The principle of separation of powers in today's Russia is recognized, constitutionally enshrined and applied to one degree or another in the construction and functioning of state institutions. The creation of a normally functioning mechanism of checks and balances is one of the important tasks of Russia.
Of course, by general rule arising from the separation of powers, the legislative and executive powers should not replace each other and should not interfere with the implementation of the functions reserved for each of them. However, the prevailing trend in a number of countries towards strengthening the executive power is largely due to two factors. First, the complication and acceleration of public life requires quick and prompt decisions on vital issues. The executive power is more adapted for their adoption. Secondly, the weakness of the executive power, the excessive interference of the parliament in the sphere of government activity inevitably leads to government instability and leapfrog, which can lead to serious political complications. This is exactly what happened, for example, with the Fourth Republic in France (1946-1958).
The principle of separation of powers in each country is different. This principle is an integral part of any democratic state. It must be borne in mind that a democracy based on common principles , always diverse and always evolving, leading the country forward, better adapting to political changes in society. And anti-democratic regimes are always the same and lead the country to an inevitable crisis. It seems that the judicial reform in Russia, about which legal scholars and practicing lawyers (mostly judicial workers) talk so much, often and floridly, claims to become an endless process. And even to some extent a "thing in itself", because the further, the more it breaks away from direct legal proceedings and punishment. After all, the courts, like 10 years ago, are overwhelmed with cases that have not been considered for years. For years, people have been languishing in the pre-trial detention center, whose guilt has not yet been proven. The prisons are still overcrowded. And so on ... The well-known lawyer Anatoly Kucherena has repeatedly stated that since the judiciary is headed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, headed by the chairman of the court Vyacheslav Lebedev, then it is from him, and not from ordinary judges, to ask for slippage and overlays in its formation and lawyers. The Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is growing in numbers year by year, but at the same time there is still not even a single regulation that determines the procedure for receiving the population and the work of offices. This cannot be attributed to the notorious lack of funding. But against the general background of problems, it is especially noticeable how the highest judicial bodies find the strength and time for internal corporate discussions. The latest in time and just unfolding is the struggle of the Supreme Court of Russia with the institution of the so-called "statutory courts" in favor of the planned "administrative" courts, which are designed, in fact, to free the Supreme Court from the most "delicate" and complex cases. The appearance in the JUDICIAL system of the country (which is rather confusing without Togo) of another category of legal proceedings - statutory courts - only added problems and confusion. At the same time, it is obvious that these courts do not perform any serious and irreplaceable functions. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the country's regions can easily do without their statutory courts and feel in no way disadvantaged. The institution of the judiciary was first provided for by the Law "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation" adopted in 1996. It was assumed that these courts would be created in the regions and deal with disputes and conflicts related to the compliance of the regulations of local authorities with the laws in force in these territories (for example, the Charter of the region, etc.). At that time, it seemed that given the existing "small sovereignties" of different regions, this would lead to greater legality and stop local arbitrariness. The introduction of a new type of courts was especially lobbied by the Ministry of Justice. It hoped to receive in the person of the statutory courts an instrument for reasoning local authorities. However, even then the Supreme Court of the country and constitutional Court reacted to the novelty with obvious disapproval, since the "statutory" ones clearly created a parallel judiciary in the region. But back then, in 1996, the problem of managing regions and confronting "arbitrariness" on the ground, which infringed on federal legislation, was quite acute. It was useless to argue with the idea of statutory courts. But time has worked for common sense. It is no coincidence that in all these years statutory courts have appeared only in two regions - in Sverdlovsk region and in St. Petersburg. Life itself has shown the far-fetchedness and incapacity of the new organ of the judiciary. And now, Vyacheslav Lebedev, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, is launching a "big" campaign against statutory courts. Experts believe that he has a lot of chances to win this fight. However, supporters of statutory courts cannot be discounted either. The most influential among them is the chairman of the St. Petersburg Charter Court Nikolai Kropachev, in the past - dean Faculty of Law Petersburg University and, admittedly, a person close to Putin's team. One way or another, but the struggle will not be easy. At a time when the country's judicial system is full of such burning, real problems, the country's best judicial and legal forces are being diverted to a rather abstract struggle. The whole next round of this struggle is the battle of Mr. Lebedev for the introduction of another type of ships. As it became known, the other day the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation submitted to the State Duma the draft law "On federal administrative courts in the Russian Federation" developed by it. It turns out that with one hand Lebedev is trying to close unnecessary courts, and with the other at the same time - to start new ones? Not certainly in that way. The fact is that if the statutory courts did not seem to obey the Supreme Court and looked like an unnecessary offshoot on the law enforcement body of the country, then the introduction of administrative courts, according to lawyers (for example, Georgy Mokhov, head of the Persona Grata legal consultation office), will be for Mr. Lebedev is very helpful. The fact is that these courts are called upon (by design) to assume the exclusive right to consider all disputes and claims related to legal acts president and government legislatures subjects of the Russian Federation, etc. In other words, the Supreme Court is going to withdraw from its competence all politically ambiguous and "slippery" processes, in which it is possible to cause displeasure of the powers that be, so as not to even create the ground for possible political conflicts. People through a sieve administrative courts(if they are created) it will be extremely difficult to achieve the truth. Moreover, the existence of such courts, according to lawyers, simply violates Article 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which strictly prohibits the creation of emergency courts in the country for a special type of legal disputes. True, it is hard to say whether Mr. Lebedev will be able to push through the State Duma such a draft that violates the Constitution.
1. The concept of judicial reform in the RSFSR: Collection / Ed. B.A. Zolotukhin. M.: Red. gas. Democrat. choice, 2001. 133 p. SB: 2:01-18/83-8; 2:01-18/84-6.
2. Axelbant, D.M. What is sick Russian Themis? Lawyer's point of view Lawyer: M., 1998, 10 pp. 27-30 On the problems of reforming Russian legal proceedings: an analytical study.
3. Alekseeva, L.B.; Lupinskaya, P.A. Judicial reform: results, priorities, prospects: Proceedings of the Conf. M. 1997 351 p.
4. Astapenko M.P. Essays on the history of the advocacy of the Don / Rost. region Collegium of Advocates. Rostov n/a: Priaz. edge, 2000. 239 p. SB: 3:01-2/256-3; 3:01-2/257-1.
5. In the wilds of judicial and legal reform Legitimacy: M., 1993 3. S. 8-14 The concept of reform in 1991
6. In the interests of the development of the judicial system and the promotion of judicial reform Ros. Justice: M., 1999, 7 S. 5-7
7. Third power, but not third-rate Man and law: M., 1995, 8 pp. 54-60 (On the concept of judicial reform in the Russian Federation).
8. Gutsenko, G. Reform leading back Ros. Federation: M., 1995, 8 pp. 45-47 Critical assessment of judicial reform in the Russian Federation.
9. Dautov, V.Yu. Judicial reform in the Republic of Bashkortostan / Sat. legislator acts of the Presidium of the Supreme. Council of the Republic Bashkortostan; Ufa 1993 275 p.
10. Debatable aspects of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Russian statehood: state and development prospects: M., 1995, pp. 279-302
11. Debating issues of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Criminal and criminal procedure legislation: Kaliningrad, 1996, pp. 42-47
12. Doroshkov V.V. Guidelines for Justices of the Peace. Cases of private prosecution: Monograph. M.: Publishing house NORMA: NORMA-INFRA-M, 2001. 271 p. SB: 2:01-12/446-1; 2:01-12/447-X.
13. Zigzags of judicial reform. Legality: M., 1993, 10 S. 22-24.
14. Study of the post-reformation situation of the judicial corps of Ugolov. Law: M., 1999, 1 S. 47-55
15. Research of the problems of justice in the conditions of the judicial and legal reform Prosecutor's office and justice in the conditions of the judicial and legal reform: M., 1997, pp. 59-137
16. How to overcome the crisis of justice Ros. justice: M., 1999, 2 pp. 2-5 Problems of implementation of the conceptual provisions of judicial reform.
17. Kolokolov, N.A. Judicial reform: some problems of the judiciary, criminal law and process: Sat. Art. Kursk, 1999. 159 p.
18. Constitutional and legal framework for the implementation of the reform of the judicial system in the Russian Federation North Caucasus. legal Vestn: Rostov n/D, 1998, 1 S. 29-49
19. The concept of judicial reform and the problems of constitutional legality in criminal proceedings. - State and Law: M., 1993, 9 S. 102-114
20. Laptev, V.V.; Yakovlev, V.F. Essays on the Russian judiciary Probl. present and future Tyumen. scientific center of the SB RAS, Gubern. Acad. Novosibirsk; The science. Sib. enterprise RAS -1998 -191 p.
21. Lebedev V.M. Judiciary in modern Russia: Problems of formation and development / St. Petersburg. state un-t. Legal. fak. St. Petersburg: Lan, 2001. 382 p. SB: 2:01-13/92-4; 2:01-13/93-2.
22. Litovchenko, V.N. Topical issues judicial and legal reform Orenburg. state agrarian un-t. Legal factor; Chief editor and ed. foreword Litovchenko V.N. Orenburg 1996 127 p.
23. At the II All-Russian Congress of Judges and outside it, Sov. justice: M., 1993 15 S. 1 (On judicial reform and the judiciary)
24. Do not leave the ashes Man and the law: M., 1995, 3. S. 35-41. (On the need for judicial reform in the Russian Federation)
25. Some results of the implementation of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Problems of improving the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Russia: M., 1993, S. 80-87 On the state of criminal justice and activities law enforcement.
26. The difficult steps of judicial reform (Fragm. from a speech at the II All-Russian Congress of Judges) Sov. justice: M., 1993, 18 p. 2 On the need to expand the competence of the judiciary, improve legal proceedings and the judiciary.
27. An updated concept of judicial reform is needed Human rights defender: M., 1997, 4 pp. 32-40
28. Novichkov V.E. Fundamentals of criminal law futurology. Kursk: Kur. state tech. un-t, 2000. 144 p. SB: 1:01-3/566-2; 1:01-3/567-0.
29. New opportunities for the development of the Russian judicial system Constitution. law: Eastern Europe. review: M.; Chicago, 1997, 2 pp. 16-23
30. About some problems of judicial reform North Caucasus. legal Vestn.: Rostov n/D, 1998, 3 S. 53-62
31. About new judicial technologies in Russia Vestn. Tyumen. state university History.: Tyumen, 1998 Issue. 1. P. 5-14 On the creation of new forms of legal proceedings, incl. jury and quasi-judicial courts, for example, the Judicial Chamber for Information Disputes under the President of the Russian Federation.
32. About judicial reform in Russia. - State and Law: M., 1992, 6 S. 3-14
33. About a course of judicial reform in the Russian Federation Resolution II Vseros. Congress of Judges of June 30, 1993 Sov. Justice: M., 1993, 16 S. 6-8
34. What should not be forgotten by the authors of the judicial reform Ros. judge: M., 1999, 2 pp. 3-5 Critical analysis of the prospects for updating the legislation on courts of general jurisdiction.
35. Orekhov, R. Judicial reform requires a radical approach Ros. justice: M., 1998 8. S. 2-4
36. The main beginnings of judicial reforms Legality: M., 1994, 5 S. 47-50 (On the 130th anniversary of the approval of the Judicial Statutes).
37. Will Russia remain a land without justice Open politics: M., 1994, 2. S. 29-33 (On the development of the concept of judicial reform in Russia).
38. Pastushenko, S.Yu. Problems of Judicial Reform Vestn. Saratov. state acad. rights: Saratov, 1997, 4 p. 3-5.
39. The vicissitudes of the fate of judicial reform. Between the past and the future M., 1999 S. 309-323.
40. Problems of judicial and legal reform in Russia: history and modernity Sat. tr. / Samar. humanit. acad. Samara, 1999 Issue 6: / Editorial board: Klenova T.V. (editor-in-chief) et al. 246 p.
41. Radienko, V. Our sick justice Jurid. bul. entrepreneur: M., 1998, 10 S. 75-80.
42. Implementation of judicial reform: organizational aspects Owls. Justice: M., 1993 3 S. 5-6.
43. Savitsky, V.M.; Larin, A.M.; Petrukhin, I.L.; Topornin, B.N. The formation of the judiciary in the renewing Russia Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences: M. 1997 56 p. : Ser.: New in legal. science and practice / Ed. Topornin B.N. Organization of the judiciary (including the role of the jury), criminal reform 161 - (On the meeting of the Council on March 12, 1997)
44. Judicial reform and principles of legal proceedings Ros. legal Journal: Ekaterinburg, 1996, 4 S. 3-7
45. Formation of an independent and independent judiciary: (State-legal aspect) Theory of law: new ideas: M., 1992 Issue. 2. S. 52-64
46. Judicial power, justice, prosecutor's office Legality: M., 1993, 9 pp. 40-41 Scientific conference at the Research Institute for the Problems of Strengthening Law and Order, Moscow, 1993
47. Judicial reform is the way to strengthen federalism Regionology: Saransk, 1995, 2 pp. 8-15
48. Judicial reform a step towards freedom Law: M., 1992, 5 pp. 81-84 Explanation of the concept of judicial reform in the RSFSR, presented by the President of Russia and approved by the Parliament of the Russian Federation on October 24, 1991
49. Judicial reform in Russia and the jury Vestn. Saratov. state acad. rights: Saratov, 1995, 1 p. 27-31
50. Judicial Reform in Russia: Problems of Transforming Soviet-Type Justice Constitution. law: Eastern Europe. review: M.; Chicago, 1997, 2 pp. 24-30
51. Judicial reform and the effectiveness of the activities of the courts, prosecutors and investigators: 2nd scientific and practical. conf. young scientists, 24 Apr. 1999: Proceedings. speeches of graduate students and applicants / S.-Petersburg. legal in-t Gener. Prosecutor's Office Ros. Federations; Under total ed. Novika V.V. SPb., 1999. 116 p.
52. Judicial reform and legal professionalism. - State and Law: M., 1994, 3 S. 134-136
53. What will happen to judicial reform? (Regarding Art. A.D. Boikov Judicial Reform of Acquisition and Calculations). - State and Law: M., 1994, 10 S. 138-143
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. From 12/12/93 (as amended on 02/10/1996) Rossiyskaya Gazeta 197; December 25, 1993
2. On the protection of the constitutional bodies in the Russian Federation. Law of the Russian Federation of 09.10.92 3618-1. Russian Newspaper 234; October 27, 1992 3. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the United States on legal cooperation in criminal matters dated June 30, 1995, no. Collection of international treaties on the provision of legal assistance. M: 1996
4. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 27, 1995. 100-rp On the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the Russian Federation Russian newspaper No. 3, 06.01.97, Courier. Weekly official information (supplement to "RV") N 3, February 1997.
Russian Empire from Alexander 1 to Alexander 2.
1. What administrative body of the Russian Empire was the highest court?
a) the Senate;
b) legal college;
c) Ministry of Justice.
2. Specify the dates of the reign of Paul I:
a) 1773–1801;
b) 1804–1813;
c) 1796–1801.
3. What did M. M. Speransky propose in his reform project?
a) introduce the system of a constitutional monarchy;
c) introduce the system of a constitutional republic.
4. In what year did the battle of Austerlitz take place?
a) 1805;
b) 1807;
c) 1813.
5. On what road did the Napoleonic army retreat in 1812?
a) along Vladimirskaya;
b) along Smolenskaya;
c) along Kaluga.
6. What transformations were prepared by the Decembrists in the event of the victory of the uprising?
a) the transfer of all land to the peasants for free use, the resignation of all ministers, the dispersal of the Senate;
b) the transfer of all power to the peasant communities, the abolition of the monarchy;
c) the proclamation of democratic freedoms through the Senate, the abolition of serfdom, the convening of the Constituent Assembly.
7. The Caucasian war ended in ... year:
a) 1864;
b) 1812;
c) 1856.
8. Which Russian doctor used anesthesia during the Crimean War?
a) S. P. Botkin;
b) N. I. Pirogov;
c) N. V. Sklifosovsky.
9. What was in Russia in the first half of the XIX century. the main means of delivery of goods?
a) boats;
b) rail transport;
c) horse-drawn transport.
10. Which European country was the main importer of goods from Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
a) England
b) France;
c) Prussia.
11. Who was directly subordinate to the political police (III branch) during the reign of Nicholas I?
a) the Minister of Police;
b) the Minister of the Interior;
c) Emperor Nicholas I.
12. What is Slavophilism?
a) a religious movement;
b) the idea of the superiority of the Slavic race;
c) the theory of a special way of development of Russia.
13. When was the Adrianople peace treaty signed between Russia and Turkey?
a) In 1828;
b) 1829;
c) 1830
14. Who are Westerners?
a) a religious sect;
b) representatives of Western European countries - investors in Russia;
c) supporters of the Western European path of Russia's development.
15. Indicate the dates of the Russian-Turkish war in the second quarter of the 19th century:
a) 1828–1829;
b) 1827–1828;
c) 1829–1830.
16. What was the reason for the start of the Crimean War?
a) the demand of Nicholas I to place all the Orthodox in Turkey under his protection;
b) insulting the Russian ambassador in Turkey;
c) regular raids of the Cossacks on Turkish villages.
17. What did the peasants get in 1861?
a) freedom from royal duties;
b) personal freedom;
c) the right to leave the community;
d) all of the above.
18. According to the judicial reform of 1864:
a) the equality of all social groups before the law was introduced;
b) the principle of the class court was preserved;
The supreme bodies of power and administration of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century
The highest authority in Russian state the imperial one remained, which was fixed by law: the power of administration throughout the entire space of the Russian Empire belongs to the sovereign; it is supreme, autocratic and unlimited, that is, all imperial orders have an unconditional legal effect. The supreme power was hereditary, and only members of the reigning House of Romanov had the right to inherit the throne in accordance with a certain order of succession to the throne. Members of the imperial house had special rights and privileges, and, in accordance with the degree of kinship with the emperor, received family titles that secured their hierarchical position.
The State Council, the Committee of Ministers and His Imperial Majesty's own chancellery, which acted on behalf of and on the orders of the Russian Emperor, were the supreme state administration bodies of the country. The State Council was established by a legislative act of Emperor Alexander I of January 1, 1810. and was the supreme legislative body of the empire. Its chairman was the emperor himself, who approved the bills approved by the members of the State Council. Structurally, the State Council consisted of a general assembly, five departments, two commissions (for drafting laws and accepting petitions) and State Chancellery. Joint meetings of departments were convened to resolve joint issues of state interest.
In the first half of the 19th century, the Governing Senate was gradually transformed into the highest judicial body, consisting of departments headed by chief prosecutors. At the head of the Senate was the Prosecutor General, who was also the Minister of Justice. The highest legislative and administrative body for Russian affairs Orthodox Church remained the Holy Governing Synod, headed by the Chief Procurator.
The Committee of Ministers, as a special government institution, was created by the manifesto of September 8, 1802 and consisted of the chairman and directors of the departments of the State Council of Ministers, the chief executives of individual departments as ministries and the secretary of state. The current affairs of the ministries and cases that were especially subject to consideration by the Committee were submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers. At the same time, materials of audits conducted by the Senate, as well as cases related to the construction of railways, the establishment joint-stock companies and some others. The Committee of Ministers prepared conclusions, which were submitted for approval by the emperor and subsequently sent for execution to the relevant state institutions.
An important place in the system of higher governing bodies was occupied by His Majesty's own chancellery, consisting of six departments during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. The office, when it was extremely important, promptly connected the emperor with all government agencies. The first department dealt with issues public service and analysis of the reports of ministers and governors, the second branch was engaged in the codification of laws, the third branch was to ensure state security, the fourth department was in charge of women's educational institutions and charitable institutions, the fifth - peasant affairs and the sixth - the administration of the Caucasian territories.
Central governing bodies of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century
At the beginning of the 19th century, collegiate bodies were replaced by ministries, in which power was transferred to the first in importance. official responsible to the emperor. In accordance with the manifesto of September 8, 1802, eight ministries were established: the army, the navy, foreign affairs, the interior, finance, commerce, justice, public education and, as a ministry, the state treasury. The ministries consisted of departments, which were divided into departments, which consisted of the so-called tables. The ministers were appointed by the emperor and were members of the Committee of Ministers. Οʜᴎ were endowed great rights and powers in the activities of the ministries that they headed. Under each minister, there was an office, a council of the minister and a general presence of departments. According to the approved principle of unity of command, directors of departments were directly subordinate to the minister, heads of department - to the director of the department, and head clerks - only to the head of their department. The Council of Ministers performed an advisory function and consisted of a comrade (deputy) minister, directors of departments and the head of the office. Ministers submitted annual reports to the Council of State and the Ministry of Finance.
Local government bodies and institutions of the Russian Empire of the first half of XIX century
The Russian Empire, as a result of significant territorial acquisitions in the West and in the East, was a large centralized state, in the administrative-territorial structure it had more than 40 provinces and 10 governor-generals. The latter included the capital cities of St. Petersburg and Moscow, as well as territories that united several provinces on the outskirts of the state. provinces in administrative order divided into counties, and counties - into volosts. The governors were appointed by the supreme power, but were in double subordination: they were accountable to the emperor and at the same time were in the public service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire, from where they received orders and orders. Governors could be civil and military; the latter were subordinated to the troops of the internal guard stationed on the territory of the province. The governors-general had the right to make personal reports to the emperor and receive instructions directly from him. The reports and reports of the governors, whose territories were part of the governor-general, were carried out to government offices through the office of the governor-general.
Under the governors, vice-governors were appointed as deputies with statutory powers. As a governing body, provincial boards were established locally, consisting of a general presence and an office. The governor was the chairman of the general presence.
Hosted on ref.rf
In the general presence discussed new legislative acts and orders of the highest authority regarding execution in the provinces. The office of the board consisted of four departments: the first promulgated laws and published the newspaper "Gubernskiye Vedomosti"; the second was in charge of the police; a separate body there was a state chamber, headed by the vice-governor, which consisted of the manager, his assistant and departments. The economic department managed the state peasants and state property; forest department - state forests and forest guards; the treasury department was in charge of the treasuries in the counties; the control department audited the treasuries.
The county governing body was the lower zemstvo court, headed by the police captain. The composition of such a court included noble assessors, elected from the county nobility. In 1837, this body began to be called simply the Zemstvo Court, which included a police officer, an indispensable assessor and two rural assessors from state peasants. At the zemstvo court there was an office, consisting of executive and investigative tables. In order to strengthen administrative control, the uyezds were divided into camps, at the head of which were placed bailiffs appointed by the governor. In county towns, there were deanery councils headed by governors. The county court was the first instance for petty criminal and civil cases. The courts of second instance at the provincial level were the Chambers of Criminal and civil court. At the same time, provincial conscientious courts functioned, court courts in the capital cities, and commercial courts arose in large cities with the development of capitalist relations.
In 1809, the Grand Duchy of Finland, divided into eight provinces, became part of the Russian Empire. The supreme power belonged to the emperor. The highest authorities in Finland were the Senate and the Saeima. The Senate consisted of two departments dealing with civil administration and overseeing the administration of justice. The President of the Senate was the Governor-General, to whom the governors were subordinate. The Sejm was a class-representative body and convened every five years. With the participation of the Seimas, laws were changed or repealed, new taxes were established.
In 1815, the Kingdom of Poland became part of the Russian Empire, the supreme power in which belonged to the Russian emperor. Poland was ruled by a vicegerent from the imperial family, under whom state and administrative councils operated. Legislative power was exercised by the Sejm, which met once every two years to discuss bills relating to the administration of Poland. Territorially, the kingdom of Poland was divided into eight voivodeships, which in turn were divided into povets (districts), and povets into gminas (volosts). In the 1830s, the Seimas and the state council under the governor were abolished, the administrative council became the main body of power and administration. Voivodships were renamed into provinces, and povets into counties.
In the annexed Caucasian territories, an administrative-territorial division was established into provinces and districts, districts and regions, and state institutions were created for administration. The supreme power was transferred to the commander-in-chief of the Russian troops in the Caucasus. In the 1840s, governorship was introduced in the Caucasus. Under the viceroy, a council of military governors and officials appointed by the emperor and an office are established.
On the vast territory of Siberia, two governor-generals were established, divided into provinces, which in turn were divided into districts. For the Kazakh lands that became part of Russia, a division into districts, volosts and auls was established. Khan's power was abolished, and the local aristocracy (sultans) was involved in the management of districts and volosts.
On the territory of the Baltic States, there was a governor-general, which consisted of three provinces, for the management of which were created local authorities management.
Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, it can be noted that in the first half of the 19th century a consistent and systematic organization of the public service took place in the Russian Empire, as a result of which special type Russian official, who subsequently actively participated in the implementation of state and legal reforms.
The highest authorities and administration of the Russian Empire in the first half of the XIX century - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The highest authorities and administration of the Russian Empire in the first half of the XIX century" 2017, 2018.
March 5, 2011 marks the 300th anniversary of the establishment of the Senate - supreme body state power and legislation of the Russian Empire.
On March 5 (February 22 old style), 1711, by decree of Peter I, the Governing Senate was established - the highest body of state power and legislation, subordinate to the emperor.
The need to create such a body of power was due to the fact that Peter I often left the country and therefore could not fully deal with the current affairs of government. During his absence, he entrusted the conduct of business to several trusted persons. On March 5 (February 22), 1711, these powers were assigned to the Governing Senate. Initially, it consisted of 9 members and a chief secretary and acted exclusively on behalf of the king and reported only to him.
After the Table of Ranks was adopted (the law on the order of public service in the Russian Empire, which regulates the ratio of ranks by seniority and the sequence of promotion to ranks), members of the Senate were appointed by the tsar from among the civil and military officials of the first three classes.
In the early years of its existence, the Senate dealt with state revenues and expenditures, was in charge of the attendance of the nobles for service, and was an oversight body for the bureaucratic apparatus. Soon, fiscal positions were introduced in the center and in the regions, who reported on all violations of laws, bribery, embezzlement and other similar actions. After the creation of collegiums (central bodies of sectoral management), all the heads of collegiums entered the Senate, but this order did not last long, and subsequently the heads of collegiums were not included in the Senate. The Senate oversaw all colleges, except for the foreign one. The post of Prosecutor General was introduced, which controlled all the work of the Senate, its apparatus, the office, the adoption and execution of all its sentences, their appeal or suspension. The Prosecutor General and the Chief Prosecutor of the Senate were subordinate only to the sovereign. The main function of the prosecutor's control was to ensure the observance of law and order.
From 1711 to 1714 the seat of the Senate was Moscow, but sometimes for a while, as a whole or in the person of several senators, he moved to St. Petersburg, which from 1714 became his permanent seat. Since then, the Senate has moved to Moscow only temporarily, in the case of Peter's trips there for a long time. A part of the Senate office remained in Moscow.
In April 1714, a ban was issued to bring complaints to the tsar about the unfair decisions of the Senate, which was an innovation for Russia. Until that time, the sovereign could complain about every institution. This prohibition was repeated in a decree on December 22, 1718, and the death penalty was established for filing a complaint against the Senate.
After the death of Peter I, the position of the Senate, its role and functions in the system of state administration gradually changed. Other supreme state bodies were created, to which the functions of the Senate were transferred. Under Catherine II, the Senate was removed from the main ones, having political significance legislative functions. Formally, the Senate was the highest court, but its activities were greatly influenced by decisions Attorney General and the admission of complaints against him (despite the formal ban). Catherine II preferred to entrust the functions of the Senate to her proxies.
In 1802, Alexander I issued a decree on the rights and obligations of the Senate, which, however, had almost no effect on the real state of affairs. The Senate had the formal right to develop bills and subsequently submit them to the emperor, but he did not use this right in practice. After the establishment in the same year of the ministries, the Senate retained the functions of the highest judicial authority and a supervisory authority, since the main managerial functions remained with the Committee of Ministers (which became the highest body of executive power).
In 1872, a "Special Presence for the Judgment of State Crimes and Unlawful Communities" was created as part of the Senate - the highest political court in Russia.
By the beginning of the XX century. The Senate finally lost its significance as the highest body of state administration and turned into a body of supervision over the legality of the actions of government officials and institutions and the highest cassation instance in court cases. In 1906, the Supreme Criminal Court was established, which considered the crimes of mainly officials.
In 1917, the Special Presence and the Supreme Criminal Court were abolished.
The Senate was abolished by a decree of the Soviet government of December 5 (November 22), 1917.
The material was prepared on the basis of information from open sources