Presidential commission on appointment. Commission on Civil Service and Management Personnel Reserve

Review the judicial selection process with an emphasis on independence judiciary experts from the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommend to Russia. After visiting our country, foreign analysts prepared an assessment report, more than 30 pages of which are devoted to anti-corruption requirements for the Russian judicial community. The Russian Federation will have to inform the organization’s secretariat about the implementation of these proposals by April 2019. It must be said that the Russian authorities have always taken GRECO’s recommendations seriously and tried to implement them (read about the recommendations regarding prosecutors on the website).

About judicial integrity

According to the GRECO Expert Group (GEG), within the framework of general process Honesty is still “taken into account” in the selection of judges of the QCC. This, in particular, is facilitated by the psychological assessment of applicants. However, the GET believes that despite a defined procedure for such assessments, objective criteria defining the qualities of integrity and ethical behavior expected of candidates “do not exist.”

The authors of the report took into account public opinion regarding the level of corruption in the judiciary, as well as the regular initiation of cases against judges involved in various illegal schemes. Therefore, they note the importance of selecting not only highly qualified candidates, but also those “whose integrity means they are protected from external pressure, conflicts of interest, etc.” GRECO's recommendation is to define objective criteria to guide the application of integrity requirements in the selection, appointment and promotion of judges, and make them publicly available.

The harmful influence of court chairmen

Court chairmen, notes the GET, “play a significant role” in the candidate selection process. And although their participation in the assignment algorithm in certain moment called “reasonable”, the method of involvement itself must be clearly indicated in the relevant regulations. This is necessary to prevent “any unofficial influence on the outcome of the process on the part of court chairmen.”

Figures of this caliber, analysts complain, not only have “some degree of influence” on the candidate proposed for appointment, but the newly appointed judge will most likely “be indebted to them.” Experts are concerned about the lack of clear, detailed legal provisions on the role of court chairmen in the judicial selection process (and generally on the careers of judges under their supervision) and their potential detrimental impact on the transparency of these procedures.

The third power lacks independence from the Kremlin...

Reviewing the work of the Presidential Judicial Personnel Commission, the GEG explicitly states that their Russian interlocutors “made it clear” that the role of the head of state in the appointment of judges “is not just ceremonial, but actually decisive.”

The Expert Group believes that the powers executive power within the selection procedure up to the final appointment of judges are such that they “could potentially have a negative impact on the independence of judges.” In this regard, GRECO recommends revising the process of selecting the servants of Themis in such a way as to best preserve the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary from the executive. At the same time, it is necessary to “significantly strengthen” the role of the judiciary in the process of selecting candidates for the positions of judges, who will then be appointed by the president.

...and magistrates - life sentences

The report emphasizes that magistrates are the only judges who do not have the right to lifelong tenure in office. Russian Federation. The GET is concerned that such a system creates risks, especially when short term tenure, as it creates opportunities for “inappropriate pressure” on justices of the peace who wish to be reappointed. This in turn leads to “distortion of the decision-making process.”

The expert group is of the opinion that guaranteeing the independence of justices of the peace and the absence of external influence on them is possible only if judges are granted indefinite terms of office. Security of office and the principle of irremovability are called in the document “key elements of the independence of judges.” GRECO recommends Russian authorities“seek ways to increase stability” in the tenure of justices of the peace.

Down with marriages with lawyers!

As GRECO analysts note, in 2016 IX All-Russian Congress judges adopted a disturbing decision: to exclude three provisions related to the impartiality of judges from the Code of Judicial Ethics. They required judges to avoid situations where close relatives have an interest in the proceedings, or where personal relationships with the parties to the proceedings might arouse suspicion or create the impression of a lack of impartiality. Judges were also required to refrain from actions that could lead to a conflict of interest.

The GET considers that these provisions constitute important guarantees of the impartiality of judges. Experts remind us of the principle that justice must not only be carried out, but also “be seen in action.” There is “no contradiction” in the fact that these provisions are enshrined both in legislation and in the CSE (which does not have priority over the codified rules for the disqualification of judges). GRECO recommends that all provisions related to the impartiality and integrity of judges that were excluded from it be returned to the code.

Judges have too much immunity

The GET is also concerned that, in addition to the immunity associated with the direct performance of judicial duties, judges also enjoy another form of immunity. It's about that the consent of the KCC is required before the commencement of any criminal investigation against them, as well as prosecution. This, according to analysts, "goes beyond the strictly functional immunity associated with the administration of justice."

The authors of the report are convinced that the current legislation is “unreasonably too broad.” The procedure for obtaining the consent of the qualification college is “inevitably lengthy” in time and can hinder investigations of corruption offenses. GRECO considers that crimes not related to the administration of justice should be investigated and prosecuted without the need for specific consent from the judiciary as a fundamental rule. The immunity of judges should be limited to activities related to their participation in the administration of justice, and “to the maximum extent possible.”

A rather unflattering portrait of the average Russian judge was painted at the Institute of Law Enforcement Problems at the European University in St. Petersburg, after analyzing surveys of Themis servants and an extensive database of documents from judicial qualification boards. For an “ordinary” judge, as it turned out, things are often not so smooth vocational education, and his professional credo is sometimes far from the values ​​of the judicial profession.

How the judiciary came to live this way and whether it is possible to reverse the situation - a Legal.Report columnist talks about this with the scientific director of the institute, an expert on judicial reform at the Kudrinsky Center for Strategic Research, Vadim Volkov.

Vadim Volkov. Photo: eu.spb.ru

Time for absentee judges

– How was he born – and how did he receive it? Was there a collective judicial image?

– In 2013, we conducted a survey of judges and for the first time received data on the structure of the judicial corps and careers. Average age the judge, according to our information, is 43 years old. Women make up 65% of total number However, among court chairmen, 64% are men.

– Did anything come as a surprise to you?

– For example, that 45% of judges have a correspondence legal education. And the latest data from the Judiciary Department tells us that the average judge renders an acquittal once every seven years. By the way, data on gender composition for 2015 has been processed - the share of women is growing, among newly appointed judges the national average is already 68%. The remaining characteristics are still in the process of generalization, but we are already expecting a slight increase in the share correspondence education and a decrease in the average age of a judge.

– How do lawyers get into judge's chair?

– As of 2013, 30% of judges came from the courts, 21% from the prosecutor’s office, 17% from investigative bodies. At the same time, 16% come from the non-state sector, including lawyers, and 10% from the public sector. Here I will note that in the 1990s, recruitment was evenly distributed across all legal professions.

– And what has changed since then?

– There are changes, and quite significant ones. The hardware career track supersedes all others. We recently analyzed 2,369 texts of conclusions of qualification boards based on the results of consideration of applications for the position of judge for 2014-2015, as well as a number of other new documents. According to our data, among judges applying for the first time, only 44% had several jobs before, and the experience of 56% of judges is limited exclusively to work in the court apparatus. As for the reappointed judges, and this can be considered a characteristic of the existing judicial corps, 78% had more than one job and 22% had only administrative experience. This is still a very significant shift in the quality and diversity of legal experience.

– No, but it increases the chances. Here are the numbers: of those without this experience, KKS rejected 47% of candidates, while almost the same number received the green light - 53%. And of those who have a hardware background, only 37.5% of candidates were rejected - 62.5% were recommended.

– How many applicants does the qualification college filter filter out on average?

– At this stage, 40% of candidates are eliminated, respectively, 60% receive a recommendation. This is a fairly significant screening, and here we must also take into account preliminary selection at the level of recommendations of court chairmen. them with more likely receive those who already work in the courts, that is, employees of the apparatus. That’s why we see such a distortion at the entrance to the CCS. At the next stage - the filter of the personnel commission under the president - another 20-25% of candidates for judges are eliminated.

Risks of a closed track

– What, in your opinion, is fraught with the prevalence of the instrumental type of building a judicial career?

– When we look at career tracks – where, from what legal areas they come to the judge’s chair – we understand several things at once. This, firstly, tells us something about the prestige of the judge’s profession relative to other professions. This also indicates what the personnel policy is judicial system. And the presidential administration regarding the judicial system.

We have three filters. The first is presiding, informal, based on the authority of the chairman of the court to recommend a judge to the position and agree to the appointment. The second is the KKS, these are the chairmen plus the judicial community, the third is the personnel commission under the president, which reflects the attitudes of the Supreme Court, the security forces and the Presidential Administration. So, if in the 1990s and even in the early 2000s people became judges from different professions– prosecutors, lawyers, investigators, commercial and government organizations, the court apparatus and from science, then now we see that the recruitment from the court apparatus dominates. It turns out that the judicial system is closed and actually educates personnel within itself.

– Is the work of court secretaries and court clerks even a legal profession?

- Only with a very big stretch. And it turns out that the system does not need external experience, it does not need experienced lawyers. And we need efficient and efficient personnel who know the letter of the law well and are guided by the positions of senior managers. This is both a response to the high workload, and a means of increasing discipline within the judicial system, and adapting this system to the risks associated with the lifetime appointment of judges.

– Does this apply to all ships?

– First of all – courts of general jurisdiction. We have here a limitation of the judge’s experience – legal and life, the predominance of instrumental values ​​that are not specific to the judicial profession. Ultimately, the narrowing base of judicial recruitment leads to a decrease in legal professionalism and internal independence.

Predictable Judge Clerk

- Causes this phenomenon have been discussed for years...
– Yes, they are extremely clear - a high load on judges, their dependence on the apparatus. At the same time, it also plays a very important role low salary the device itself. Therefore, additional incentives to work were quietly introduced, in particular, the order Judicial Department dated July 27, 2006 No. 69 - a requirement for compulsory legal education for court secretaries, which provides legal experience to become a judge. Therefore, the career track “secretary – assistant – judge” is becoming truly widespread and this is no longer a temporary solution, but a conscious personnel policy.

– And the quality of justice suffers?

– Judges with limited life and professional experience, with a predominance of clerical experience, will have a lesser predisposition to make independent judicial decisions. As I have already said, the values ​​of the judicial profession are being eroded, and in their place are values ​​of a general bureaucratic nature. Only in our country are the professions of a judicial clerk and a judge combined! In other countries they are separated. And they don’t get from one to the other.

– Are there ways to separate one from the other?

– It is necessary to cancel the requirement of higher legal education for secretaries - to block the hardware track. Increase salaries for court staff from the current 12-18 thousand rubles to at least 30-40 thousand. Working as an assistant judge, by the way, is important for the judicial profession; it is a valuable experience, but it should not be the only one! It is also important to reduce the burden on judges, here the methods are as follows: increasing the threshold amount of a claim for government agencies, court fees, eliminating unnecessary procedures, introducing a mandatory claims procedure for consideration of certain categories of cases (as now tax and antimonopoly cases). Change the policy of the CCJ and the powers of court chairmen.

In the long term, we believe it is necessary to create a Federal Center training of judges, where training until appointment to the position lasts 6-10 months. And the appointment itself should depend on the results of training, on exams, otherwise there will be no incentive to study well. It would be advisable to introduce specialized programs for judges and aptitude testing. I think it will be useful to use foreign experience - for example, the French l’Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, national school training of judges and prosecutors.

PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

About the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for positions of judges federal courts

Document with changes made:
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 25, 2003 N 1389 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 48, 12/01/2003) (changes came into force on July 1, 2003);
By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2004 N 988 ( Russian newspaper, N 164, 03.08.2004);
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 28, 2005 N 736 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 28, 07/11/2005);
(Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, No. 8, 02/19/2007);
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of January 12, 2010 N 59 (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, N 3, 01/18/2010);
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 2, 2013 N 85 (Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 02/04/2013);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 07.25.2014) (came into force on August 6, 2014).
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2014 N 794 (Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 12/19/2014, N 0001201412190035);
(Official Internet portal of legal information www.pravo.gov.ru, 10.29.2018, N 0001201810290003).
____________________________________________________________________

In order to ensure the implementation of the constitutional powers of the President of the Russian Federation to appoint judges of federal courts

I decree:

1. Establish a Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts.

2. Approve the attached Regulations on the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts and its composition.

____________________________________________________________________

Clause 2 has lost force insofar as it concerns the approval of the composition of the Commission - Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2004 N 988.

____________________________________________________________________

3. To recognize as invalid:

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1994 N 64-rp (Collection of Acts of the President and Government of the Russian Federation, 1994, N 7, Art. 557);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 25, 1994 N 400-rp (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1994, N 14, Art. 1625);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 6, 1995 N 111-rp (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1995, N 11, Art. 985);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 19, 1995 N 467-rp (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1995, N 43, Art. 4054);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 18, 1997 N 433-rp (Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1997, N 43, Art. 4964);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 2, 1999 N 262-rp (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1999, N 32, Art. 4081);

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 11, 1999 N 380-rp (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1999, N 42, Art. 5026).

4. This Decree comes into force from the date of its signing.

The president
Russian Federation
V.Putin

Regulations on the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts

I. General provisions

1. The Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is an advisory body to the President of the Russian Federation to ensure the implementation of the constitutional powers of the President of the Russian Federation to appoint judges of federal courts.

2. The Commission in its activities is guided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws, decrees and orders of the President of the Russian Federation, as well as these Regulations.

The Regulations on the Commission are approved by the President of the Russian Federation.

II. Main tasks and functions of the Commission

3. The main tasks of the Commission are:

preparation taking into account the opinion of authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts recommendations to the President of the Russian Federation on submission in accordance with Article 128 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council Federal Assembly Russian Federation of candidates for appointment to the positions of judges Constitutional Court Russian Federation, judges Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, including the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - chairmen of the judicial panels of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation;
from August 6, 2014 by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 25, 2014 N 529.

preparation, taking into account the opinion of the plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts, recommendations to the President of the Russian Federation on the appointment of judges, including chairmen and deputy chairmen, of federal courts of general jurisdiction and federal arbitration courts;
(Paragraph as amended, put into effect by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 29, 2018 N 615.

preparing proposals for the President of the Russian Federation to improve the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the procedure for selecting candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts and the procedure for vesting powers with judges of federal courts;

preparation of proposals for the President of the Russian Federation aimed at improving the unified public policy in the field of personnel selection for positions of judges of federal courts.

4. The main functions of the Commission are:

consideration of materials submitted in the prescribed manner, taking into account the opinion of authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts, on candidates for the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, judges, including chairmen and deputy chairmen, of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, federal courts of general jurisdiction and federal arbitration courts , as well as other materials related to the selection of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts, and preparation of proposals to the President of the Russian Federation based on these materials;
(Paragraph as amended, put into effect by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 29, 2018 N 615.

participation in the preparation of draft federal laws introduced into State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation, concerning the procedure for selecting candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts and the procedure for vesting powers with judges of federal courts;

preparing annual reports on the activities of the Commission and submitting them to the President of the Russian Federation.

III. Operating procedure and ensuring the activities of the Commission

5. In order to solve its main tasks, the Commission has the right to request and receive in the prescribed manner necessary materials from federal bodies state power, government bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as from organizations and officials, including authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts.

5_1. Materials on candidates for the positions of judges specified in paragraph two of clause 4 of these Regulations, with the exception of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, are considered by the Commission within two months from the date of their submission in the prescribed manner.
By Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 25, 2014 N 529.

If the Commission has not received the necessary materials requested in the prescribed manner in accordance with paragraph 5 of these Regulations, it has the right to postpone the consideration of materials on a candidacy for the position of a judge of a federal court, but not more than for one month.
(The paragraph was additionally included by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 12, 2007 N 158)

5_2. Proposals on the submission by the President of the Russian Federation to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of candidates for appointment to the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, including the First Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - chairmen of judicial panels of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as well as proposals for the appointment of judges, including chairmen and deputy chairmen, of other federal courts are sent to the President of the Russian Federation within one month from the date of the meeting of the Commission at which materials on candidacies for the posts of judges indicated were considered in paragraph two of clause 4 of these Regulations.
(The paragraph was additionally included by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated February 12, 2007 N 158; as amended, put into effect on August 6, 2014 by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 25, 2014 N 529.

6. Organizational and technical support for the work of the Commission is provided by the Office of the President of the Russian Federation on issues civil service and personnel (clause as amended by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2005 N 736; as amended by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated January 12, 2010 N 59.

7. The composition of the Commission is approved by the President of the Russian Federation.

8. The clause has lost force - Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 2014 N 794..

9. A meeting of the Commission is considered valid if at least half of its members are present.

10. The decision of the Commission is made by a simple majority of votes of its members present at the meeting. Before the start of the meeting, a member of the Commission who is absent for a valid reason may inform the Secretary of the Commission in writing about his opinion on the issues on the agenda of the meeting. This information is announced at the Commission meeting and attached to the meeting materials.

11. Decisions of the Commission are documented in minutes, as well as a conclusion on each issue on the agenda of the meeting and signed by the chairman of the meeting and the secretary of the Commission. Dissenting opinions of members of the Commission are documented in in writing, are recorded in the protocol and attached to the conclusion.

Composition of the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation for the preliminary consideration of candidates for the positions of judges of federal courts

(as amended November 25, 2003)
____________________________________________________________________
Revoked based on
Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2004 N 988. -

See previous edition
____________________________________________________________________

Revision of the document taking into account
changes and additions prepared
JSC "Kodeks"

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 29, 2011 N 1038
"On the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation on personnel policy issues in law enforcement agencies"

In order to ensure the implementation of the powers of the President of the Russian Federation to implement personnel policy in law enforcement agencies, I decree:

1. Establish a Commission under the President of the Russian Federation on personnel policy in law enforcement agencies.

3. This Decree comes into force from the date of its signing.

President of Russian Federation

D. Medvedev

Moscow Kremlin

Position
on the Commission under the President of the Russian Federation on personnel policy in law enforcement agencies
(approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated July 29, 2011 N 1038)

With changes and additions from:

1. The Commission under the President of the Russian Federation on personnel policy in law enforcement agencies (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) is an advisory body under the President of the Russian Federation, ensuring the implementation of the powers of the head of state to implement personnel policy in the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of the Russian Federation for civil defense, emergency situations and disaster relief, Federal service execution of punishments, Federal Bailiff Service, State courier service Russian Federation and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as law enforcement agencies).

2. The commission considers personnel issues in relation to persons applying for military positions to be filled by senior officers, positions of senior command, positions for which the assignment of senior special ranks, positions belonging to the highest group of federal government positions civil service(Further - senior positions), included in the corresponding lists of positions that do not have a restricted access stamp, as well as in relation to persons holding senior positions. The materials necessary to consider personnel issues in relation to these persons are submitted by the heads of law enforcement agencies in the prescribed manner.

3. The Commission in its activities is guided by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws, decrees and orders of the President of the Russian Federation, as well as these Regulations.

4. The main tasks of the Commission are:

a) consideration of submissions from heads of law enforcement agencies and preparation of proposals to the President of the Russian Federation on the appointment of persons applying for senior positions in law enforcement agencies, on extending the service life of military personnel, employees and federal civil servants holding senior positions in law enforcement agencies;

b) assessment of the performance of persons applying for senior positions in law enforcement agencies, and persons holding senior positions in law enforcement agencies, their professional and personal qualities, consideration of issues related to their compliance with the requirements of anti-corruption legislation;

c) consideration of other issues of staffing the activities of law enforcement agencies.

5. In order to solve its main tasks, the Commission has the right:

a) request and receive, in the prescribed manner, the necessary information and materials from federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and others government agencies, organizations and institutions, as well as from officials and authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts;

b) invite to their meetings officials of federal government bodies, government bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other government bodies, as well as representatives of organizations and institutions;

c) conduct extraordinary certification of persons holding senior positions in law enforcement agencies.

A third of judicial candidates who receive approval from qualification colleges do not receive approval from the presidential personnel commission. This figure is growing year by year. Such data was voiced by Anton Fedorov, head of the Russian Presidential Administration for Civil Service and Personnel, who spoke to members of the qualification colleges. He explained the reasons why applicants for judicial positions are most often rejected after they have been approved by the judicial community itself.

Those wishing to become judges go through several stages of selection. The largest volume of checks falls on the qualification boards: an “internal” check by the judicial community itself, but those who are lucky enough to get the go-ahead from their colleagues have to overcome one more obstacle - the so-called “presidential filter” - a commission for the preliminary review of candidates for judicial positions under the president. IN last years It is at this stage that more and more candidates are eliminated who had previously been recommended for positions by regional qualification boards.

32% of candidates presented to the president in 2017 were not appointed to positions, announced disappointing figures by Anton Fedorov, head of the Russian Presidential Administration for Civil Service and Personnel. The figure has only gotten worse in recent years. Thus, in 2015, the number of those who did not pass the selection amounted to 23% of the number recommended for judges, in 2016 - 28%, and in the first half of this year - already 37%.

There are leading regions in this process: Ingushetia, Dagestan, Chechnya, Yakutia. But there are also opposite examples: Tula, Kostroma, Ryazan, Sverdlovsk region, where there was not a single similar case, Fedorov noted.

Why candidates are rejected

If we talk about the main reasons that are discussed when candidates are rejected, their structure has changed somewhat.

According to a representative of the Presidential Personnel Commission, in 2015-2016, candidates reported false information about income and property and issues related to conflicts of interest prevailed. But in 2017, the topic of a candidate providing false information in competition documents became widespread. In 2016, such cases were 18%, in 2017 - already 23%. Most often information about entrepreneurial activity relatives and information about bringing the candidate and relatives to administrative responsibility.

“There are cases when a candidate could not have complete objective information or unintentionally distorts information - this is fundamentally different from providing false information. In such cases, during a detailed discussion in the qualifying board and reflecting this in the protocol, we treat these things differently,” noted Fedorov.

The number of candidates rejected due to conflict of interest increased by 18% compared to 2016.

“The provision of Article 3 of the law on the status of judges does not exclude the judge from considering cases in a situation of conflict of interest. It is important that he informs about this possible conflict parties to the process and this was reflected in the relevant protocol. In this case, we believe that the situation has been settled,” Fedorov explained.

In addition, “unexpectedly often” - in 13% of cases - one of the reasons for rejection is the low quality of the candidate’s work.

Housing problem and other problems

Anton Fedorov spoke about cases of unjustified advantages associated with the status of a judge. “There are few such cases,” he admitted.

One of them is the housing topic. "Since 2005, the provisions of the legislation that provided for early opportunity transfer of ownership of residential premises to judges free of charge. Currently, the only mechanism for specially providing judges with housing is the provision of office space. The legislation does not allow the alienation of this housing into ownership today,” Fedorov emphasized, noting that such isolated violations, when through court decisions such housing becomes a property, have taken place.

The judicial community itself is counting on changes in the legislation regarding housing for judges. Thus, the head of the Judiciary, Alexander Gusev, who spoke to members of the KKS the day before, announced the preparation of a bill that would allow judges to privatize official housing. “It turns out that the only category of civil servants who are provided not with housing, but with a hotel, are judges. Prosecutors were allowed to do this [privatize housing], but judges were not,” Gusev noted. According to him, the issue of the possibility of transferring housing to a judge in the bill is proposed to be resolved by a joint commission of the Supreme Court, the Council of Judges and the Judiciary.

Another situation that Fedorov drew attention to when speaking about judicial violations is an appeal outside the terms of the decision to bring to administrative responsibility. “In these cases, as a rule, another person was driving. The court satisfies the judge’s complaint, the guilty person avoids punishment. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that complaints from other categories of citizens in such a situation are not satisfied,” he warned.

Also problematic for candidates for judges is the issue of actual marital relations, Fedorov pointed out. When studying candidates, a lot of attention is paid to information about their spouses and close relatives, which should ensure transparency in issues relevant to those who go to court, he noted. However, when information appears about unregistered relationships, information that was not initially in the candidate’s case file, “sometimes vital things become clear,” a representative of the personnel commission indicated.

Another issue that could be problematic for candidates could be citizenship. “We must pay attention to ensuring that candidates who previously lived in other states do not have a second citizenship,” the speaker noted.

Rigidity of selection and shortage of personnel

Those gathered were more interested in other issues - for example, what are the chances of getting an appointment as a lawyer or prosecutor. The issue is especially relevant for regions that experience a severe shortage of judicial personnel. Judging by Anton Fedorov’s answer, there are no obstacles to this, however, it is better to seek an appointment not in your own region, but in a neighboring one: then there will be no questions to the candidate regarding a conflict of interest.

So far, we do not have a single ruler that we would use when selecting candidates for judge positions.

Anton Fedorov, Head of the Russian Presidential Administration for Civil Service and Personnel

The problem, he says, is the lack feedback. However, the personnel commission is taking steps to rectify the situation. So, about a year ago they began sending to the Armed Forces newsletters as a result of presidential decrees on the appointment of judges. They analyze candidates who did not pass the filter, “so that you can see what nuances the commission pays attention to,” Fedorov emphasized.

Given the tightening requirements, judges have no choice but to comply. “Some of the pressing issues that arise today did not exist at all before,” admitted the head of the VKKS Nikolai Timoshin. He noted that the only thing that can be done is to continue the formation of the judiciary, taking into account the new requirements, which are the same for everyone, without taking into account the characteristics of the regions and current situation with a staff shortage. The day before, Timoshin shared statistics according to which fewer and fewer people want to take up judicial positions from year to year.