 | № 93 (3243) | 10.06.2006 |
A precedent
It is not England, yet...
Kazan lawyers and human rights activists find that the Supreme court of the Republic of Tatarstan has recently set a dangerous precedent, remaining a determination of the Novo-Savinovsky district court in force. According to this determination the representative of the complainant was debarred from taking part in hearing of the case for he is not a lawyer.
The head of the Supreme court of the Republic of Tatarstan Gennady Baranov refused to comment this decision to our correspondent, he just informed us that the decision of the judicial assembly of the Supreme court can be applied as a supervisory.
Of course, we will appeal against it, - says the lawyer of the Human rights center of Kazan, the representative of the complaint Sergey Akhmetzyanov (see the article "From suspected one to a witness – with struggle", "Evening Kazan", the 8 April), whose appeal got no satisfaction.
Juridical analyst of the Association of the Human rights organizations "AGORA" Ramil Akhmetgalyev supports his colleague, defining this decision as "absolutely strange and unclear".
- It actually legitimates the disfranchisement by courts, - he told our correspondent. - Constitutional court of the Russian Federation has already discussed the questions about representatives of the complaints, and has defined in the determination of 5.02.2004 № 25-О that anyone can be a representative, not only lawyers.
Let alone the fact that this right is fixed in the 45th article Criminal code of the Russian Federation.
It should be applied against this definition undoubtedly to avoid the use of it in court practice.
The director of the Kazan juridical center Konstantine Yegorov, who has won many criminal, civil and arbitration proceedings, had a less categorical opinion:
- I would feel hurt, if I would be expelled; yet the personal claims of a lawyer are not important here.
It is not Great Britain, where the judge-made law prevails and the decision of the Supreme court does not oblige all the judges act the same way. Yet it is a precedent in the common sense.
The authority of the Supreme court is high enough, so the judges in the districts’ courts can apply this definition as a recommended one.
| 
