How do our courts execute the law? Check experimentally ...
On July 1, 2010, the federal law “On ensuring access to information on the activities of courts in the Russian Federation” entered into force. He expanded the duties of courts to disclose information: now all their decisions, with some exceptions, they are required to publish on the Internet. In addition, citizens can request from the courts information about their activities and study cases stored in judicial archives.
However, in practice, our courts very unexpectedly approached the execution of this law: they simply ignore it.
I myself faced this when I appealed against one decision . Rather, the actual appeal did not start: I was not a party to the case and could not file a complaint, because it is required to attach a copy of the contested decision to it. When I requested it, the court replied that, since I am not a participant in the case, I am not supposed to have a copy. In addition, it turned out that the case "contains confidential information," in general, the court refused to send it.
And this - despite the fact that the aforementioned federal law mentions the right to “not justify the need to obtain the requested information on the activities of the courts, access to which is not limited,” as one of the rights of the user of information. Simply put, I don’t have to motivate my request at all.
As for the “confidential information”, the law also stipulates how to deal with it: it should simply be deleted from the copy that is sent on request. Approximately as occurs at the publication of decisions on sites of courts.
This is not the only example. Here is a description of a similar case where the court also simply refused to comply with the law.
Similar stories occur with another law - “On ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies”. In the heads of officials and employees of the courts, it simply does not fit the fact that any person from the street can simply request from them some kind of document that does not apply to him personally.
Well, as a result of my correspondence, I had the idea of checking our courts for law-abiding , consisting in sending out requests to the courts and making public the received answers. Judicial "excuses" will be published, carefully analyzed and summarized.
Another of the objectives of the action is to collect those decisions that recognized as "extremist" various materials included in the relevant list , which is administered by the Ministry of Justice. Although in principle, the subject matter is not limited: you can use sample queries for some of your needs.
You can also participate in the checkout. Read here how to do this .
However, in practice, our courts very unexpectedly approached the execution of this law: they simply ignore it.
I myself faced this when I appealed against one decision . Rather, the actual appeal did not start: I was not a party to the case and could not file a complaint, because it is required to attach a copy of the contested decision to it. When I requested it, the court replied that, since I am not a participant in the case, I am not supposed to have a copy. In addition, it turned out that the case "contains confidential information," in general, the court refused to send it.
And this - despite the fact that the aforementioned federal law mentions the right to “not justify the need to obtain the requested information on the activities of the courts, access to which is not limited,” as one of the rights of the user of information. Simply put, I don’t have to motivate my request at all.
As for the “confidential information”, the law also stipulates how to deal with it: it should simply be deleted from the copy that is sent on request. Approximately as occurs at the publication of decisions on sites of courts.
This is not the only example. Here is a description of a similar case where the court also simply refused to comply with the law.
Similar stories occur with another law - “On ensuring access to information about the activities of state bodies and local self-government bodies”. In the heads of officials and employees of the courts, it simply does not fit the fact that any person from the street can simply request from them some kind of document that does not apply to him personally.
Well, as a result of my correspondence, I had the idea of checking our courts for law-abiding , consisting in sending out requests to the courts and making public the received answers. Judicial "excuses" will be published, carefully analyzed and summarized.
Another of the objectives of the action is to collect those decisions that recognized as "extremist" various materials included in the relevant list , which is administered by the Ministry of Justice. Although in principle, the subject matter is not limited: you can use sample queries for some of your needs.
You can also participate in the checkout. Read here how to do this .
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/111800/
All Articles