Institute of dissenting opinion of a constitutional judge in Russian and foreign legal orders

Abstract

Changes to regulations on dissenting opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation provoked a vivid discussion among the Russian legal professionals. It appears that arguments in this discussion are closely connected to approval or disapproval of constitutional judges’ dissenting opinions as such. The present paper attempts to discuss the legislative amendments regulating dissenting opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court from another perspective, namely through a comparative study of regulating of this sphere in dynamics, in Russia and abroad. For the aims of the study it is proposed to examine normative regulations on the right to dissenting opinion from “material” (right to dissenting opinion) and “procedural” (right to publish a dissenting opinion) aspects. The comparative analysis allowed identifying similarities and unique elements of the current legislation with that in foreign countries. Establishing requirements for contents of a judge’s dissenting opinion or to the form (style) of its expression can be regarded as relatively common. Yet, the situation where public expression of a dissenting opinion of a judge of a constitutional supervisory body is impossible while judges of general courts encounter no such limitation, is rather unique.

References

1. Antonov A. V. Predvaritelniy normokontrol zakonov v Konstitutsionnom sovete Frantsii: Nekotorye protsedurnye voprosy // Zhurnal konstitutionnnogo pravosudiya. 2018. No 3 (in rus).
2. BasangovD.A. Yuridicheskaya priroda osobogo mneniya sudyi Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. 2006. No 2 (in rus).
3. Vereshagin A. N. Osobye mneniya v rossiyskikh sudakh // Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2006. No 4 (in rus).
4. Vereshagin A. N. Osobye mneniya v Konstitutsionnom Sude Rossii. Kak sudyi prinimayut resheniya. M., 2012 (in rus).
5. Ispolinov A. S. Osobyye mneniya v mezhdunarodnykh sudakh: doktrina i praktika // Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2018. No 1 (in rus).
6. Kleandrov M. I. Institut osobogo mneniya sudyi: Kakovy ego znacheniye i osnovnyye funktsii? // Rossiyskoye pravosudiye. 2019. No 9 (in rus).
7. Kokotova M. A. Tseli sushchestvovaniya osobykh mneniy v Konstitutsionnom Sude RF i Verkhovnom Sude SSHA // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. 2019. No 4 (in rus).
8. Kryazhkova O. N. Pod pokrovom tayny: Zapret razglashat rezultaty golosovaniya v Konstitutsionnom Sude Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Konstitutsionnoye i munitsipalnoye parvo. 2016. No 10 (in rus).
9. Kryazhkova O. N. Tri prichiny otmenit zapret na publikatsiyu osobogo mneniya sudyi Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Konstitutsionnyy vestnik. 2021. No 6 (24) (in rus).
10. Kuznetsov D.A. Faktory, kotorye neobkhodimo uchityvat pri provedenii sravnitelno-pravovogo issledovaniya praktiki zarubezhnykh organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya // Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya. 2016. No 3 (in rus).
11. Troitskaya A. A. Sravneniye I sravnitelniy metod v nauke konstitutionnogo prava: osobennosti ispolzovaniya // Konstitutsionnoye i munitsipalnoye pravo. 2017. No 2 (in rus).
12. Bierlein B. Separation of powers and Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies. 2011.
13. Brennan W. J. In Defense of Dissents // Hastings L. J. 1986. Vol. 37. N 427.
14. Bricker B. The (Very) Political Dissent: Dissenting Opinions and the Polish Constitutional Crisis // German L. J. 2020. Vol. 21(8).
15. Entrikin J. Lyn, Disrespectful Dissent: Justice Scalia’s Regrettable Legacy of Incivility // J. App. Prac. & Process. 2017. Vol. 18. N 201.
16. Goźdź-Roszkowski S. Communicating Dissent in Judicial Opinions: A Comparative, Genre-Based Analysis // Int’l J. Semiot L. 2020. Vol. 33.
17. Henderson M. T. From seriatim to consensus and back again // Public law and Legal Theory Working paper no. 186. 2007.
18. Laffranque J. Dissenting opinion and judicial independence // Juridica Int’l. 2003. Vol. 8.
19. Luchaire F., Vedel G. La transposition des opinions dissidentes en France est-elle souhaitable? «Contre»: le point de vue de deux anciens membres du Conseil constitutionnel // Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel. N 8. Juillet 2000.
20. O’Tuama S. Judicial Review under the Irish Constitution: More American than Commonwealth // Electronic J. Comp. L. 2008. Vol. 12(2).
21. Rafaelli R. Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States: Study. Brussels, 2012.
22. Rodiņa A., Spale A. Constitutional Status of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia // Constitutional Justice. International bulletin of the Conference of bodies of constitutional supervisions of the states of new democracy. 2012. Iss. 4(58).
23. Safta M. The Role Of Dissenting And Concurring Opinions In The Constitutional Jurisdiction // Perspectives of Law and Public Administration. 2016. vol. 5(1). 24. Vitale D. The value of dissent in constitutional adjudication: a Context-specific analysis // Rev. const. stud. 2014. Vol. 19. N 1.
24. Zagrebelsky G. La pratique des opinions dissidentes en Italie // Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel. N 8. Juillet 2000.