...
Remarkably, the majority of constitutional commentators state that Russiais Russia is not yet a law-based state. By Russian scholars the pravovoe gosudarstvo is seen as a goal to be achieved (like a welfare state) but not as a reality.
...
In the context of primacy of the law one particularity of the hierarchy of norms should be emphasised: The Russian Constitutional Court stated the priority of the "Code of Criminal Procedure" even over later laws. It perceives a code as "an own, structured system" with the consequence that new norms have to comply with that code (decision from 29.06.2004, N 3-P). Though, modifying the "lex posterior"-principle, the Court recognised a priority of "codified" normative acts over "simple" norms in other federal laws. Interestingly, that decision was based inter alia on the principle of the rule of law. But in later decisions, the Constitutional Court modified its ruling and made clear, that this priority principle does not apply in cases where (later) federal laws establish additional guarantees of rights and interests of citizens (e.g. decision from 15.05.2007).
The idea of "dictatorship of law" proclaimed as a reaction to the widespread legal nihilism in Russiais Russia is even contradictory with regard to its description of the liberal foundation of the concept of the rule of law. The implicated "blind" application of laws and the oppressive sound do not correspond with the (material) concept of pravovoe gosudarstvo.
...
One further element of pravovoe gosudarstvo is the rule by the people (Article 3). The multinational people of Russiais Russia is the bearer of the sovereignty.
...
They can initiate disciplinary measures; they propose the candidates for different positions in within the court. Their opinion has an important impact on the career of a judge. This leads directly or indirectly to an "adjustment" of the judges. More important is the power of court presidents' power to adopt the schedule of responsibilities. In the end, they decide which judge deals with which case. The impartiality is therefore not guaranteed. In a considerable number of cases the court presidents of courts substitute the judges in ongoing cases. That leads to violations of the right to the lawful judge.
Since 2006, in some Arbitrazh courts, an automated system of allocation of cases were introduced in order to reduce the described human factor. But that are particular cases and the system is not appropriate for smaller courts.
A judge can become "easily" subject to disciplinary measures or to relief of duties in a case of infringement of the "Codex of judicial ethics". Its rules are very general. In first instance a "qualification council" decides about the dismissal of a judge upon the request of President the president of a court. The judges in that council are delivered to the same extend to the sword of Damocles of disciplinary measures as any judges - so, they are not protected from pressure and can be even the judges at the same court and "under" the President of the court who initiated the dismissal procedure. Furthermore, the majority decides and there is no procedure guaranteeing secret voting.
...
