Decree of the Council of People's Commissars (On the Court). The first Soviet decrees on the court The main content of the decree on the court 1
The laws of the Soviet state adopted in 1917-1918, which laid the foundations of the Soviet judicial system and socialist justice.
D. about s. No. 1 adopted by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22 (December 7) 1917 (SU RSFSR, 1917, No. 4, Art. 50). Abolished all pre-existing judicial institutions(except for the magistrates' courts, the activities of which were suspended), the tsarist prosecutor's office, the legal profession and the investigative apparatus. Legislatively consolidated the democratic foundations of the organization and activities of Soviet courts: election; participation in the administration of justice of people's assessors; open consideration of cases in courts; the accused's right to defense.
D. about s. # 2 adopted by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on February 18, 1918 (SU RSFSR, 1918, No. 26, article 420). Provided: the creation of district courts to consider cases exceeding the jurisdiction of the local court (here, for the first time, local courts were officially called local people's courts); the establishment of regional people's courts as a cassation instance for the district courts and the Supreme judicial control in Moscow. Decree No. 2 for the first time consolidated the democratic foundations of Soviet legal proceedings: consideration of cases in the language of the majority of the population of the area where the case is being heard, early recall of judges, etc. legal aid the population was envisaged to create collegiums of advocates under local Soviets.
D. about s. No. 3 adopted by the Council of People's Commissars on June 20, 1918 (SU RSFSR, 1918, No. 52, p. 589). He significantly expanded the jurisdiction of local people's courts, abolished the right to be guided by old laws, and instead of regional people's courts and the Supreme Judicial Control in Moscow temporarily created a single cassation court with two divisions (for criminal and civil affairs).
64. Constitution of the RSFSR 1918: general characteristics
Constitution of the RSFSR 1918 (lat. - device) - the first constitution of the Soviet state. The decision to prepare the first Soviet Constitution was made at the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918. On April 1, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee created a commission consisting of representatives from the Communist faction of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Ya.M. Sverdlov, M.N. Pokrovsky, I.V. Stalin), from the Left SR faction (D.A. Magerovsky, A.A. Schreider), from the maximalists (A.I.Berdnikov), as well as from the People's Commissariats (N.I. Bukharin, M.Ya. Latsis, V. A. Avanesov, D.P.Bogolepov, M.A.Reisner, E.M. Sklyansky). In the midst of a sharp struggle, the Commission approved the Bolshevik draft of the "Basic Principles" of the Constitution. An important role in the preparation of the Constitution was played by the Commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), chaired by V.I. Lenin, created on June 28, 1918, the Commission developed, supplemented and amended a number of main chapters and articles of the Constitution. On July 10, 1918, the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets unanimously approved the First Constitution of the RSFSR. On July 19, 1918, the text of the first Constitution of the RSFSR was published in the Izvestia VTsIK newspaper. At the suggestion of V.I. Lenin, Section 1 of the Constitution was the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People. The Constitution legislatively consolidated the gains of the October Revolution: the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a republic of Soviets, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, the transfer of the main means of production to the ownership of the people, the equality of nations, federation as a form of organization, proletarian internationalism, fundamental freedoms and rights of workers. According to the Constitution supreme body state power The RSFSR was the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the highest legislative, administrative and controlling body between congresses - the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, which created the RSFSR government - the Council of People's Commissars - SNK. Local organs of Soviet power were regional, provincial, uyezd (district), volost congresses of Soviets, city and village Soviets and their executive committees. The entire system of government bodies was built on the basis of the principle of democratic centralism. The first Soviet Constitution had an openly class character. The Constitution established a restriction in the rights of the "non-working" population. The right to elect and be elected to the Soviets was granted upon reaching the age of 18 - to workers, employees, soldiers, peasants and Cossacks "who did not use hired labor for the purpose of making a profit." "Exploiting elements" (2-3% of the population) were deprived of voting rights. Temporarily the working class had an advantage in electoral law in comparison with the peasantry in the norms of representation in elections to Soviets and to congresses of Soviets. According to V.I. Lenin, as "the resistance of the exploiters ceased," it was envisaged to extend the Constitution to the entire population.
Court decrees - regulations bodies of Soviet power (VTsIK and SNK of the RSFSR), adopted in 1917-1918. and regulating activities judiciary in the first years after the October Revolution.
The need to adopt such decrees was due to the position of the Bolsheviks, in particular, V.I. Lenin, aimed at decisively demolishing the judicial institutions that existed before the October Revolution.
Another reason was that "in the localities" immediately after the revolution, a spontaneous formation of new courts began, whose activities were based on local customs or on "revolutionary legal consciousness." Similar courts were created in Petrograd, Moscow, Kronstadt, Novgorod, Cherepovets, Saratov, Smolensk, in the Tomsk, Penza, and Yaroslavl provinces.
At the same time, the judicial authorities continued to operate, left over from the times Russian Empire and the Provisional Government, - a judicial system headed by the Governing Senate.
The Soviet government did not want to put up with such a "dualism", all the more, as P. I. Stuchka recalled,
All courts with the Governing Senate at the head of our revolution were simply ignored. If in February, on the second day of the revolution, the courts had already written their decisions "by decree of the Provisional Government", then after the October Revolution they did not want to temporarily recognize the Workers 'and Peasants' government. In hundreds of chambers of justices of the peace and various other courts, decisions were announced by decree of the ousted Provisional Government.
Court Decree No. 1
Initially, the draft decree was developed by P. I. Stuchka and M. Yu. Kozlovsky. At a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on November 16, 1917, it was decided to create a commission to consider the draft decree.
After that, the decree was to be considered by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, however, since some of its provisions aroused objections from the Left SRs, the Bolsheviks led by Lenin actually did not allow a full-fledged consideration of the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and the decree was approved directly by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917.
The decree proclaimed the abolition of all judicial institutions that existed in Russia before its adoption
somehow: district courts, judicial chambers and the Governing Senate with all departments, military and naval courts of all titles, and commercial courts.
The flow of all procedural timeframes suspended from October 25, 1917 until the issuance of a special decree on the determination of the procedure for the movement of all unfinished cases to this number.
The institute of justices of the peace was suspended until the replacement of these judges by local courts, elected "on the basis of direct democratic elections, and until such elections are called temporarily by regional and volost, and, where there are none, by district, city and provincial Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies."
All civil cases, the cost of the claim for which did not exceed 3,000 rubles, as well as criminal cases, the punishment for which did not exceed two years in prison (with a price of a civil suit not exceeding 3,000 rubles), were declared subordinate to local courts. Moreover, the decisions of such courts were final and not subject to appeal on appeal.
A cassation review of decisions of local courts on penalties exceeding 100 rubles and imprisonment for a term exceeding 7 days was allowed. Uyezd (in Moscow and Petrograd - metropolitan) congresses of local judges were proclaimed as the cassation instance.
The jurisdiction of other cases remained undefined until the “special decree” was issued.
Institutions judicial investigation, prosecutorial supervision and the legal profession were also abolished. The conduct of the preliminary investigation was entrusted to local judges, and the functions of a prosecutor and a defense attorney could be performed by “all non-discredited citizens of both sexes using civil rights". It is also noted that
Any person present at the trial could speak on the case, including those interested in the outcome of the case and striving to deliberately act with the aim of wrongly accusing an innocent or acquitting a criminal ... Therefore, subsequent decrees on the court abandoned the institution of general civil prosecution and general civil protection.
To resolve civil disputes and criminal cases of private prosecution, it was envisaged to create arbitration courts, the procedure for which should be regulated by a special decree.
"To fight against counter-revolutionary forces in the form of taking measures to protect the revolution and its conquests from them, as well as to resolve cases of combating looting and plunder, sabotage and other abuses of merchants, industrialists, officials and other persons ..." revolutionary tribunals were established, consisting of a chairman and six assessors, elected by the provincial or city councils. A little later, the activities of the tribunals were regulated by a separate Instruction of the People's Commissariat of Justice of the RSFSR. For the production of cases, amenable to the tribunals, commissions of inquiry were organized under the respective Soviets.
The decree did not fully resolve the issue of the right to be applied by the newly created courts. It was established only that
Local courts decide cases in the name of the Russian Republic and are guided in their decisions and sentences by the laws of the overthrown governments only insofar as they have not been abolished by the revolution and do not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness.
At the same time, all previously issued laws that contradicted the decrees of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, as well as the minimum programs of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and the Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, were recognized as canceled.
Later (1918) it was established that the courts, recognizing this or that law as canceled, must indicate the reasons for such cancellation.
Immediately after the decree was issued, measures began to implement it.
The Military Revolutionary Committee (VRK) of Petrograd already on November 25, 1917 ordered "to close the Senate, establish guards and not let anyone inside without a VRK pass."
Despite this, the Senate passed a resolution evaluating Decree No. 1, which stated:
The Senate inquired about the intention of those who seized power shortly before the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, which should be a true expression of the directive will of the Russian people, to encroach on the very existence of the Governing Senate, which has been guarding law and order in Russia for too 200 years. These persons, daring to abolish the Governing Senate and all courts, undermine the very foundations of the state system and deprive the population of its last support - the legal protection of its personal and property rights. The criminal actions of persons calling themselves People's Commissars in recent weeks indicate that they do not hesitate to use violence against institutions and persons who have become the guardians of the Russian state. Before the violence touches the senior of the higher institutions of Russia and deprives the Governing Senate of the opportunity to raise its voice in the hour of the greatest danger to the homeland, convened on the basis of Art. 14 Institutions of the Senate are determined by the General Assembly of the Senate, without recognizing legal force following the orders of any unauthorized organizations, to unswervingly fulfill, until the decision of the Constituent Assembly on the formation of power in the country, the duties assigned to the Senate by law, as long as there is any opportunity for this, and let all subordinate places and persons know about it.
The Moscow District Court, the Petrograd and Moscow Bar Association also announced their rejection of the provisions of the Decree .. Contemporaries noted: "There was not a single judge in all of Moscow who would continue to work after the issuance of a new decree on the court ...".
In the period from the end of November to December 1917 in Petrograd, in addition to the Senate, the Petrograd Court of Justice, the District Court with all departments and divisions were also abolished, prosecutor supervision, cameras judicial investigators, the Commission to Investigate the Activities of the Former Police Department, the Emergency Commission of Inquiry and a number of other old judicial investigative bodies.
Court Decree No. 2
The adoption of the Decree on Court No. 2, as in the case of Decree No. 1, was preceded by a political struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs (represented, in particular, by I.N.Steinberg, who held the post of People's Commissar of Justice of the RSFSR at that time and directly supervised the preparation of the text decree), concerning the principles of the activity of judicial institutions in the RSFSR (the SRs advocated less radical measures in the field of judicial reform).
On February 15, 1918, the draft decree was submitted for approval by the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, on February 20 - approved and published on February 22.
The decree created the district people's courts as courts of first instance for civil and criminal cases not attributed to the jurisdiction of local courts under Decree No. civil status), as well as "generally cases that are not subject to assessment" are subject to the jurisdiction of the first instance to local courts, and cases of competitions worth more than 3000 rubles. - to the district courts.
District courts were elected by local Soviets for territories corresponding to the territories of the previous judicial districts that existed before the October Revolution (while local Soviets, by their agreement, had the right to increase or decrease such territory). The members of the court were also elected by local councils with the right of subsequent recall.
The principle of exclusively collegial consideration of cases was introduced in the district courts. Civil cases were heard by three permanent members (judges) and four people's assessors. Criminal - in the composition of one presiding judge and twelve regular assessors and two substitutes.
The general lists of people's assessors were drawn up by the provincial and city councils on the basis of candidates submitted by the district and volost Soviets, and the regular lists of assessors for each session of the district court were formed by the executive committees of the Soviets by drawing lots.
The appellate procedure for considering cases was finally canceled. Possibility was admitted cassation appeal decisions and sentences of district courts, for which the institute of regional people's courts was introduced as a cassation instance.
Regional courts were to be elected "from among themselves" at general meetings of permanent members of district courts, while the persons elected by the members regional courts, could be recalled both by the assemblies that elected them and by the respective Soviets.
Regional courts were empowered to overturn the contested decision both on formal grounds and in the event of its unfairness.
The courts of cassation also had the right to pardon and mitigate sentences.
To ensure the uniformity of cassation practice in Petrograd, it was planned to create a Supreme Judicial Control, whose members were to be elected from among the judges of regional courts for a period of no more than one year (with the rights of recall and re-election). It was planned that the Supreme Judicial Review would issue “unifying principled decisions” on the interpretation of laws binding on the lower courts of cassation. At the same time, in cases of “detection of an irreparable contradiction between the current law and the people's legal consciousness”, the Supreme Judicial Control could make a submission to the appropriate legislative body on the adoption of a new law. Only the legislative body of Soviet power, which at that time was the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, could overturn the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Control.
In the courts of all instances, it was allowed to "negotiate in all local languages" by decision of the court itself, together with the local Council.
When considering civil cases in cases requiring special knowledge, it was allowed, at the discretion of the court, to invite “knowledgeable persons” to the court session with the right of an advisory vote.
Formal restrictions on the relevance and admissibility of evidence were abolished. The question of the acceptance or rejection of specific evidence was left entirely to the discretion of the court. Before giving testimony, witnesses were warned about responsibility for perjury, and the institution of judicial oath was canceled. The secret of merchant books "and other books" was also abolished.
Legal disputes between state institutions were prohibited.
Minors under the age of 17 could not be prosecuted or imprisoned. To consider cases of offenses committed by such persons, "commissions on minors" were established, consisting of representatives of the departments of justice, public education and public charity.
The institution of court fees for civil cases was introduced.
The preliminary investigation in criminal cases “exceeding the jurisdiction of the local court” was carried out by commissions of inquiry of 3 people elected by the Soviets. A complaint could have been lodged against the decisions of the commissions of inquiry with the district court.
The indictment was replaced by a decision of the commission of inquiry on bringing to trial, while the district court, if such a decision was found "insufficient", had the right to return the case to the commission of inquiry.
Under the Soviets, “collegia of advocates” were established, elected by these Soviets with the right of subsequent revocation. Members of the collegiums of advocates were entrusted with the functions of both public prosecution and public protection. Only members of the collegiums of advocates were granted the right to "appear in courts for a fee." In addition to the members of the board, in court session on the side of the prosecution or defense, one person from those present at the meeting could speak. Thus, the principle of Decree No. 1 on the unrestricted participation of any person in the prosecution or defense was done away with.
Appeals against acquittals and decisions mitigating or exempting punishment were not permitted. At the same time, the convicted person could ask the local court for conditional or early release, as well as for pardon or restoration of rights.
The term for appeal in both civil and criminal cases was set at one month.
Decree No. 2 allowed the courts to apply pre-revolutionary laws, but
only insofar as they have not been canceled by decrees of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars and do not contradict socialist legal consciousness.
In addition, in Art. 8 of the Decree directly emphasized that in legal proceedings the courts are guided by the Judicial Charters of 1864 (with the proviso "since they have not been canceled by decrees ... and do not contradict the legal consciousness of the working classes")
In practice, local courts rarely applied pre-revolutionary laws, being guided mainly by “revolutionary legal consciousness”; the district courts, which considered more complex cases and were staffed in many respects with "old cadres", applied pre-revolutionary norms much more often.
As for the "revolutionary sense of justice", then, from the point of view of the Soviet doctrines of the 20s. (influenced by the psychological school of law), it was understood as a kind of "legal idea", formed under the influence of socio-psychological factors.
In fact, either local customs or the ideas of a particular judge about “revolutionary expediency” were used as sources of “revolutionary legal awareness”. V individual cases judges in their decisions and sentences were recommended to directly refer to the works of V. I. Lenin and K. Marx as "undoubted sources of law and justice."
Court Decree No. 3
The publication of the Decree was preceded, firstly, by the suppression of the uprising of the Left Social Revolutionaries by the Bolsheviks in early July 1918, which led to the expulsion of representatives of this party from the Soviets of all levels on the basis of the Decree of the V All-Russian Congress of Soviets dated July 9, 1918. “According to the report of Comrade Trotsky on the assassination of Mirbach and the armed uprising of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries ”and the de facto ban on this party. This meant that the need to coordinate the provisions of the Decree with the SRs disappeared, and therefore it was no longer of a compromise nature, unlike the two previous decrees. Secondly, in July 1918, the II All-Russian Congress of Provincial and Regional Commissars of Justice took place, discussing the already accumulated judicial practice; the decisions of this congress formed the basis of the Decree.
The decree delimited the jurisdiction of cases between local people's courts, district courts and revolutionary tribunals.
All criminal cases (with the exception of cases of encroachment on human life, rape, robbery and banditry, counterfeiting banknotes, bribery and speculation) were attributed to the jurisdiction of local courts. At the same time, cases of bribery and speculation were simultaneously removed from the jurisdiction of the tribunals.
Local courts could impose a sentence of imprisonment for up to 5 years, "guided by the decrees of the Workers 'and Peasants' Government and the socialist conscience."
Civil cases with a claim price of up to 10 thousand rubles. were also under the jurisdiction of local courts.
Cassation of decisions and sentences of local courts was allowed, "for which a recovery of more than 500 rubles or imprisonment for more than 7 days was awarded"; the councils of local judges were declared the cassation instance.
The consideration of civil cases in the district courts was to be carried out in the composition of one judge and four assessors.
Instead of the Supreme Judicial Control stipulated by Decree No. 2, it was planned to establish the Cassation Court in Moscow as a cassation instance in relation to the district courts. The formation of this court was to be carried out by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
The decree did not finally answer the question of the admissibility of the application of the rules of pre-revolutionary legislation by the courts of the RSFSR (sometimes it is considered and even argued in the TSB that this Decree introduced a ban on the application of such rules). From this we can conclude that even after the issuance of Decree No. 3, the possibility of such application was formally allowed in the manner determined by Decree No. 2. The final ban on the application of "old" norms by the courts followed only on November 30, 1918, when the All-Russian Central Executive Committee approved the Regulation on the People's Court , in the footnote to Art. 22 which explicitly contained a ban on references in decisions and sentences to "the laws of overthrown governments." It was up to this time that the courts could use the norms of the pre-revolutionary civil, criminal, procedural law, although the decrees of the Soviet government significantly limited their application, especially civil and procedural law.
Libmonster ID: RU-10532
The founders of Marxism-Leninism have repeatedly pointed out that the court is an organ of state power. He has always served and serves the interests of the ruling classes. In bourgeois society, the court is one of the most subtle and powerful means of suppressing and exploiting the working masses. The bourgeois court is completed exclusively from representatives of the ruling classes.
"The court was in capitalist society," wrote Lenin, "primarily an apparatus of oppression, an apparatus of bourgeois exploitation." In a report at the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets, describing the pre-revolutionary judicial system of tsarist Russia, Lenin said that the court in Russia "pretended to be the defense of order, but in fact was a blind, subtle instrument of ruthless suppression of the exploited, defending the interests of the money bag."
Bourgeois jurists, being loyal servants of their masters, present the bourgeois court as a supra-class body, a body independent of state power, a body that protects the established order in the interests of the whole society. Publicity, independence and irremovability of judges are presented as the basic democratic principles on which the bourgeois court is supposedly built. This is how they try to hide the class essence of the bourgeois court.
Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fully exposed the lies of bourgeois lawyers about the supra-class and independence of the bourgeois court. They showed that the bourgeois court is an organ of class coercion, an organ of oppression of the working masses, and judges have always depended and depend on the state power and are replaced at any time if they turn out to be unsuitable for serving the interests of the bourgeoisie and landowners.
The founders of Marxism-Leninism not only revealed the class essence of the bourgeois court, but also gave exhaustive instructions on how the proletariat should treat the old court. Since the bourgeois court is an organ of state power, an organ for the suppression and exploitation of the working masses, it must be destroyed, broken, smashed as one of the most important parts of the bourgeois state machine.
Here is what Lenin wrote on this issue: “Only the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the confiscation of its property, the destruction of the entire bourgeois state apparatus from top to bottom, parliamentary, judicial, military, bureaucratic, administrative, municipal, etc., up to the universal expulsion or internment of the most exploiters. dangerous and stubborn, the establishment of strict supervision over them to combat the inevitable attempts to resist and restore capitalist slavery, only such measures in conjunction
1 Lenin. Works, vol. XXII, p. 424.
2 Ibid., P. 212.
standing to ensure the real subordination of the entire class of exploiters "3.
The first attempt to break, break the bourgeois state machine, the bourgeois court was made by the Paris Commune. However, for a number of reasons, both internal and external, she failed to fully fulfill this task. Only the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, taking into account the experience of the Parisian Communards of 1871 and the experience of two revolutions in Russia (1905 and the February revolution of 1917), fulfilled this historic mission to the end.
Having defined the attitude of the working class to the old court, the founders of Marxism-Leninism developed a specific program for building a new, Soviet court and clearly formulated its tasks. “The new court,” wrote Lenin, “was needed first of all to fight against the exploiters who are trying to restore their rule, or to defend their privileges, or to smuggle through, by deceit to get one or another piece of these privileges. But besides, to the courts, if they are Organized really on the principle of Soviet institutions, another even more important task lies down. This is the task of ensuring the strictest implementation of discipline and self-discipline of the working people. That is, in the first stage of the transition from capitalism to socialism, or - without coercion. Without coercion, such a task is completely impossible. We need the state, we need coercion. The organ of the proletarian state, exercising such coercion, must be the Soviet courts. And they have a huge task educating the population to labor discipline "4.
The Great October Socialist Revolution gave up the entire complex bourgeois-exploiting state machine with its material and material appendages for scrapping, because neither the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, nor its law, nor its laws could at all be adapted to carry out the tasks set by the proletarian revolution. At the same time, on the ruins of the bourgeois state and law, the October Revolution created a new, socialist state, a new law, a new order and a new socialist legality. "The new government," said Comrade Stalin, "creates a new rule of law, a new order, which is a revolutionary order."
The Soviet court is the brainchild of October. In terms of its goals and objectives, it is fundamentally different from the bourgeois court. If the court in bourgeois society protects the interests of an insignificant minority, the interests of the bourgeoisie and landowners, then the Soviet court protects the interests of the overwhelming majority, the interests of all working people. "The Soviet court," writes Academician A. Ya. Vyshinsky, "is the native brainchild of the Soviet state, flesh of flesh and bone of bone of the new socialist society. It serves the interests of the working people, the interests of the people, it is the people's court in the truest and most true sense of the word." 6.
Specific expression and legislative consolidation breaking the old court and law in Russia and the creation of a new, revolutionary court and a new, socialist law were the first decrees of the Soviet
3 Lenin. Works, vol. XXV, p. 314.
4 Lenin. Works, vol. XXII, p. 424.
5 I. Stalin. Questions of Leninism, p. 611. 10th ed.
6 Vyshinsky A. Theory of judicial evidence in Soviet law, p. 18. Yurizdat. 1946 year.
government formed at the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Among all the government decrees issued during the Great October Socialist Revolution and devoted to issues of court and law, Decree No. 1 on the court takes a special place. The draft of the first decree on the court was born in heated debate and fierce struggle. And this is not accidental, for he was solving the problems of abolishing the entire exploitative judicial machine and all bourgeois law. At the same time, Decree No. 1 on the court laid a solid foundation for a new, Soviet court and a new, revolutionary law.
The question of a new trial came before the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee immediately after the October Revolution. On November 10, 1917, 7th draft decree No. 1 on the court was first announced at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee by P.I.Stuchka 8. On the same day, the newspaper Pravda, No. 185, published an article by P.I. new court and new law. The author of the article wrote: "It is necessary to eliminate this apparatus of power (we are talking about the judicial apparatus. - P. M.) and immediately conduct the trial on the basis of purely democratic elections, with the right to recall elected judges in the same way. "
For preliminary consideration of the draft decree No. 1 on the court at the said meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a commission of five people was created. The factions were instructed to provide the names of their candidates to the said commission. It is possible, however, that this commission did not begin work, since the minutes of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the materials available to them do not contain any notes about this. At the same time, the newspaper Pravda, dated November 14, 1917, reported that the Council of People's Commissars was developing a draft decree on revolutionary courts. This suggests that the Council of People's Commissars was directly involved in the development of the draft decree on new, revolutionary courts. True, a little later the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at its meetings repeatedly discussed the issue of revolutionary courts, but it did not make a final decision on this issue. So, on November 17, 1917, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee considered the draft decree No. 1 on the court and made the following decision: "The draft decree should be submitted for discussion by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee." On November 19, 1917, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee again discussed the draft Decree No. 1 on the court and adopted the following resolution: "Postpone until the Presidium meeting on November 20 and ask the Legal Commission to revise the decree again in accordance with the instructions given at the Presidium meeting." On November 21, 1917, at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, on the day when the decree on the right to recall deputies was discussed and adopted, the draft decree on revolutionary courts was again considered, but this time the draft failed. Although at the meeting it was decided to discuss the draft in the commission and adopt it on the same day, due to the fact that the meeting dragged on until late at night, this issue was not discussed and was postponed to the next meeting 11. In the subsequent agendas of the meetings of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of November 24, 1917 (Minutes No. 15) and of November 25, 1917 (Minutes No. 16), the issue of revolutionary courts was again listed, but the All-Russian Central Executive Committee did not make any decision on this issue, possibly because Decree No. 1 on the court was finally approved by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917.
8 Central Archives of the October Revolution (TsAOR), f. 1235, op. 17, protocol N 10.
9 Ibid., Op. 25, protocol N 2.
10 Ibid., Protocol No. 3.
11 Ibid., Op. 17, protocol N 14.
It should be noted that in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the draft decree No. 1 on the trial met with strong opposition from the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries, who already had their representatives in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, who declared that one should not rush to break the old judicial system and the old bourgeois landlord law , meaning in the future to use the court and law in their restoration, counter-revolutionary purposes. Under all sorts of pretexts, they delayed the adoption of the draft decree on a new, revolutionary court. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the Council of People's Commissars took this issue into its own hands.
In the Council of People's Commissars, the issue of a new, Soviet court and revolutionary law was also discussed several times. On November 15, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars created a commission (the composition of the commission was not indicated - P. M.) for preliminary consideration of the draft decree N 1 on the court 12. On November 16, 1917, the Council of People's Commissars again considered the issue of revolutionary courts and the closure and liquidation of all old judicial institutions. At this meeting, at the suggestion of V.I. Lenin, a second commission was created consisting of comrades I.V. Stalin, A.V. Lunacharsky, P.I. Stuchka and one member of the Military Revolutionary Committee. The commission was asked to develop the final text of the draft decree on revolutionary courts and submit it to the Council of People's Commissars by 8 pm on November 17, 1917. At the same time, A.V. Lunacharsky was instructed to develop and submit a draft declaration to the decree on revolutionary courts 13.
The said commission fulfilled the instructions of the Council of People's Commissars and presented a new version of the draft decree No. 1 on court 14, which was considered on November 19, 1917, but due to the fact that the draft decree was submitted to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the issue of a new, revolutionary court in this day from discussion in the Council of People's Commissars was removed 15.
The instruction of the Council of People's Commissars regarding the development of a draft declaration to the decree on a new court by A.V. Lunacharsky was not fulfilled. However, in direct connection with this instruction was his article "The Revolution and the Court", published in "Pravda" on December 1, 1917, No. 193. In this article, A. V. Lunacharsky substantiated the need to break the old, exploitative court and law and create a new, revolutionary court and law.
In the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the adoption of the decree was slowed down and delayed. At the same time, it was impossible to hesitate in this matter, for the remnants of the hostile classes, using the old apparatus of civil servants, widely organized counter-revolutionary sabotage. The economic foundation of the young Soviet state was encroached upon by speculators and other criminal elements. It was necessary to immediately create a special body to combat criminal elements. This body was the new Soviet court. True, in the localities, even before the adoption of Decree No. 1 on the court, local people's courts were created directly by the working masses. These courts, despite their organizational imperfection, played a large positive role in the fight against crime in the early days of the revolution. Positive result their experience was reflected in Decree No. 1.
On November 22, 1917, at a meeting of the Council of People's Commissars, chaired by Comrade Lenin, the question of re-
12 CAD, f. 130, op. 26, protocol N 1-A.
13 Ibid., Op. 1, protocol N 2.
14 One copy of this draft is in the annexes to the minutes of the meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of November 21, 1917 N 14. In its content, this draft completely coincides with Decree N 1 on the court, approved by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917.
15 CAD, f. 130, op. 1, protocol N 4.
voluntary courts. At this meeting, the draft decree no. 1 on the court was approved. First, the project was voted on by item, and then as a whole. At the same time, the following detailed decision was adopted, which set out the reasons that prompted the Council of People's Commissars to act so decisively with the issue of revolutionary courts.
"1. Taking into account that the draft of the introduction of a revolutionary court, worked out several weeks ago, was subjected to repeated discussions in the Council of People's Commissars, in the commissions and in the CEC factions, and any significant differences were eliminated by means of appropriate amendments and changes.
2. Taking into account that the final passage of the bill through the CEC is hampered by accidental and incidental reasons that lie completely outside the scope of the question of the court.
3. Taking into account that the absence of a revolutionary court creates a completely hopeless situation for the Soviet Government, making the Government helpless against criminal counter-revolutionary sabotage.
4. Taking into account that, according to precedents and in accordance with a resolution on this score, the CEC itself, the Council of People's Commissars has the right, in cases of urgency, to adopt decrees independently and only then submit them to the CEC.
5. Taking all this into account, the Council of People's Commissars sees itself compelled, without actually committing the slightest violation of the power and rights of the CEC, to adopt in today's session the law on the revolutionary court and immediately put it into effect. "
This decision was a practical implementation of the thought of V. I. Lenin, expressed by him in a letter dated November 4, 1917, addressed to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in connection with the request of the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries. “The new government,” said Lenin, “could not reckon in its activities with all the slingshots that could get in its way with strict observance of all formalities. The moment was too serious and did not allow delay. , which, giving only external decoration, did not change anything in the essence of new events "17.
The broad working masses greeted the appearance of Decree No. 1 on the court with great joy and enthusiasm. They viewed this decree as an act of great state importance, aimed at strengthening the new order, new revolutionary legality.
Lenin and Stalin were the real inspirers, organizers and creators of a new, revolutionary court and law. Therefore, we can rightfully call Decree No. 1 on the court a Leninist-Stalinist decree, which laid down the basic principles and provisions of the new, Soviet court and new, socialist law, which were further developed and consolidated in Soviet legislation on the court and, finally, in a remarkable document of our era - the great Stalinist Constitution.
Decree No. 1 on the court contained the following main provisions: 1. The existing judicial regulations were abolished, such as: district courts, judicial chambers, the senate with all departments, military and maritime courts, the tsarist prosecutor's office, the legal profession and judicial investigators. These courts were replaced by new courts formed by democratic elections.
16 CAD, f. 130, op. 26, protocol N 8.
17 Lenin. Works, vol. XXII, p. 45.
2. Justices of the peace were replaced by local people's judges. Instead of the institute of justices of the peace, local courts were created, which were supposed to hear cases consisting of a permanent judge and two people's assessors, elected on the basis of direct democratic elections, and before the appointment of these elections, they were to be temporarily elected by local Soviets. The compilation of the lists of people's assessors was entrusted to the local councils, which also determined the order in which they would appear at meetings of the local court. On the fronts, local courts were elected by regimental Soviets, and where there were none, by regimental committees. Former justices of the peace were not deprived of the right to be elected to local judges, if they expressed their consent to this. Local courts could impose punishment in criminal cases for a term not exceeding two years in prison, and consider civil cases if the cost of the claim did not exceed three thousand rubles. This also determined the jurisdiction of local courts. Appeal canceled. It was also not allowed on insignificant cases to appeal cassation. In important criminal and civil cases cassation complaints were to be considered by the county congresses of local judges. The question of who should have tried cases that exceeded the competence of the local court remained open.
3. Issues of preliminary investigation, accusation and defense at the trial were resolved. The conduct of the preliminary investigation of criminal cases was entrusted to a local judge. Defense was allowed both during the preliminary investigation and in court. All citizens enjoying civil rights could act as defenders and prosecutors.
4. Local courts were granted the right, when resolving criminal and civil cases, to be guided by the material and procedural laws of the overthrown governments, but only insofar as they were not abolished by the revolution and did not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness. The footnote to Article 5 stated that "all laws that contradict the decrees of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of the RS and Red Dept. and the Workers 'and Peasants' Government", as well as the minimum program of the RSDLP, are recognized as canceled.
5. To combat counter-revolutionary crimes, looting and plunder, sabotage and other abuses of merchants, industrialists, officials and others, in addition to local courts, revolutionary tribunals were created. They were supposed to act in the composition of the chairman and six people's assessors, elected by the provincial and city councils. This procedure for electing the members of the tribunal ensured that these bodies were staffed with class-reliable and politically consistent workers. Under the same Soviets, special commissions of inquiry were formed to carry out preliminary investigations into cases within the jurisdiction of the revolutionary tribunals.
6. The right to pardon convicts was granted to the judicial authorities.
Decree No. 1 on the court, adopted by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917, differs significantly from the original draft-decree No. 1 on the court. One of the main authors of the initial draft of the court decree was P. I. Stuchka 19.
18 In the early days of the revolution, local courts were not organized at the fronts, since soldiers from the old army were being demobilized, and comradely courts existed in the units of the Red Guard. Only after the creation of a regular Red Army at military units local courts were organized.
19 A copy of this project is printed in NKYu Materials, no. II, pp. 103 - 104, 1918.
The original draft proposed the immediate abolition of the institution of justices of the peace and the repeal of the laws of the ousted governments. These issues in Decree No. 1 on the court, as we indicated above, are resolved differently. To combat the actions of counterrevolutionary forces, that is, counterrevolutionary crimes, according to the initial draft decree on the court, it was envisaged to organize special commissions of inquiry under the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies. Revolutionary tribunals were established by decree no. 1 on the court.
The demand for the immediate abolition of the institution of justices of the peace by an act of state power from above was premature and incorrect. The authors of the original draft decree on the court did not take into account the fact that the socialist revolution had won in a backward, predominantly petty-bourgeois country, in a country with a predominantly peasant population, among whom many believed in the authority of justices of the peace as judges elected by the people. This illusion had to be dispelled first, remove the veil of "judicial justice" from the justices of the peace and show the masses that the justices of the peace served only the exploiting classes with faith and truth, fulfilling only their interests and their will. The magistrates' courts were not connected with the working peasantry, as well as with the working class. The authors of the original draft of the decree forgot Lenin's instruction that "socialism cannot be imposed on the peasants by force and one must rely only on the force of example and on the assimilation of everyday practice by the peasant masses."
The working peasantry had to be introduced to socialism not by administrative measures from above, not by violence, but by persuasion, showing a worldly example, by which they themselves would be convinced that only Soviet power can free them from the chains of landlord oppression.
The suspension of the institution of justices of the peace meant nothing more than a sober, real consideration of the level of consciousness of the broadest strata of the working people when organizing new government agencies, new authorities, taking into account their relationship to the old authorities, to the old institutions. Here is what Comrade Stalin writes on this subject: “One cannot but recall Lenin’s golden words spoken by him at the Eleventh Congress of our party:“ In the masses of the people, we (communists. I.S.) are still a drop in the ocean, and we can only govern when we correctly express what the people are aware of. Without this, the Communist Party will not lead the proletariat, and the proletariat will not lead the masses, and the whole machine will fall apart "(see Vol. XXVII, p. 256)." It is correct to express what the people are aware of "- this is precisely what it is. a necessary condition that ensures for the party the honorable role of the main leading force in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat "21.
Decree No. 1 on the court suspended the activities of the institution of justices of the peace, which, of course, did not mean that the Council of People's Commissars was going to continue to preserve this institution and use it. On the contrary, the indication "to suspend" meant essentially abolition. Life has fully confirmed this. The institution of justices of the peace was not restored, and it suffered the same fate as other courts, but this was not done immediately, but gradually, that is, only after the masses themselves were convinced in practice that the justices of the peace, elected by city councils and zemstvo assemblies, served only the interests of the bourgeoisie and landowners.
20 Lenin. Works, vol. XXII, p. 207.
21 I. Stalin. Questions of "Leninism, p. 136. 11th ed.
The original draft of the court decree completely abandoned the use of the old substantive and procedural laws. Soviet courts were to be guided by the decrees of the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in resolving criminal and civil cases. At the same time, the authors of the original draft substantiated their proposal with references to the words of K. Marx from his famous speech to the jury at the Cologne trial in 1848, in which he pointed out that the old laws, which are the expression of the will of the ruling classes, are perishing along with the old social relations. when, as a result of a social revolution, one social structure is replaced by another 22. However, this instruction from Marx does not contradict the spirit of Decree No. 1 on the court, adopted on November 22, 1917, on the contrary, this decree is entirely based on the main provisions of Marxism-Leninism on the need to break the entire apparatus of bourgeois-landlord justice. The reference in the decree to the possibility of the application of old laws by the new courts in the interests of the working people is not a departure from Marxism, but a creative application of it in Russia after the victory of the proletarian revolution, taking into account the specific features and conditions of our country. We must not forget Comrade Stalin's instructions that “the October Revolution had one of its main tasks to complete the bourgeois revolution, that without the October Revolution it could not be brought to the end, just as the October Revolution itself could not be consolidated without the revolution "23.
The Great October Socialist Revolution, incidentally, in passing, resolved the issues of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. V. I. Lenin wrote: "We solved the problems of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in passing, in passing, as a" by-product "of our main and real, proletarian-revolutionary, socialist work." Lenin called this period a period of cleansing the "Augean stables" of the remnants and remnants of serfdom.
Lenin and Stalin admitted the possibility of using to a certain extent, at the first stage of socialist construction, when Soviet legislation was just being formed, old material and procedural laws in the interests of strengthening the new order, in the interests of the working people. "The new government creates a new legality, a new order, which is a revolutionary order ... If some of the laws of the old system can be used in the interests of the struggle for a new order, then the old legality should also be used."
Without denying in principle the possibility of using old laws, Decree No. 1 on the court reduced this possibility to the very minimum limits. The courts were given the right to refer to the laws of the overthrown governments only in those cases when these laws were not abolished by the revolution and did not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness.
Decree No. 1 on the court, as well as subsequent decrees of the period of the Great October Socialist Revolution, provided wide scope for judicial discretion.
We must also not forget the fact that, according to article 8 of Decree No. 1 on the court, in order to combat counter-revolutionary crimes, looting, predation, sabotage and other dangerous
22 See K. Marx. Vol. VII, pp. 254 - 255.
23 I. Stalin. Questions of Leninism, p. 247. 9th ed.
24 Lenin. Works, vol. XXVII, p. 26.
25 I. Stalin. Questions of Leninism, p. 611, 10th ed.
workers and peasants' revolutionary tribunals were created by crimes, which were not connected with the old laws and in their activities were guided by the decrees of the Soviet state and revolutionary legal consciousness. By the way, according to the original draft of Decree No. 1 on the court, it was envisaged to organize special commissions of inquiry, "to judge the actions of counter-revolutionary forces and measures to protect the revolution from these forces," and not revolutionary tribunals. The idea of organizing revolutionary tribunals belongs to our leaders V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin.
The revolutionary tribunals were the punitive organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, carrying out the functions of suppressing the resistance of class enemies. PI Stuchka, as far back as 1918, considered them not so much as punitive organs, but as incriminating organs. In doing so, he distorted the true nature of the revolutionary tribunals. In practice, such an assessment had a negative impact on the strength of their repression, which in the first months of the existence of the revolutionary tribunals was not sufficiently severe only after special instructions from decision-making bodies by the end of 1918, the revolutionary tribunals began to carry out their tasks in in full and began to deal more decisively with class enemies who encroached on the gains of the revolution, applying severe criminal penalties to them.
All this shows that the old legislation was reduced to the role of ancillary. The new local people's courts in their work resorted to using the old laws on very rare occasions and only in the first days of the revolution. Most of the local courts resolved criminal and civil cases on the basis of decrees of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars and on the basis of revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal awareness.
We managed to establish from the materials to the minutes of the Council of People's Commissars, as well as from the notes of P.I. This circumstance gives special value and the relevance of said article and footnote. It is no coincidence that the enemies of the people, who were operating on the legal front, made slanderous statements about the decree, referring partly to article two (suspension of the institution of justices of the peace) and fully to article five. They explained the use of the old laws not by the historical situation of the period undergoing and the peculiarities of the October Revolution, but by fear, fear of the capitalist elements inside the country and a compromise with the bourgeois science of law.
In reality, however, the partial use of the old material and procedural laws in the first days of the revolution was dictated by the peculiarities of the October Revolution and the originality of the situation that developed after the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This reflects the political wisdom and vigilance of our leaders, Lenin and Stalin. In principle, the old laws were abolished by the very fact of the October Revolution.
The "Left" Socialist-Revolutionaries fought against Decree No. 1 on the court not only during the period of its discussion, but also after it had already been approved by the Council of People's Commissars. As soon as the "Left" Socialist-Revolutionary Steinberg was appointed People's Commissar of Justice, at the same meeting of the Council of People's Commissars (December 9, 1917) he demanded to completely repeal Decree No. 1 on the court. The Council of People's Commissars did not agree with his proposal and in its decision indicated that "the first decree on the court cannot be canceled" 26.
26 CAD, f. 130, op. 1, protocol N 23.
The class-political meaning of Decree No. 1 on the court and its revolutionary significance was quickly understood by the remnants of the hostile classes inside the country and the enemies of Soviet power abroad. Selling counterrevolutionary press like the Kadet "Russkiye vedomosti" and similar counterrevolutionary Menshevik-Socialist-Revolutionary newspapers, published in the first months after the victory of October, raised a wild howl on their pages against Decree No. 1 on the trial.
Tsarist civil servants, judicial officials, bourgeois corrupt professors, the old advocacy, and others, inspired by the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, revolted against the decree. They organized counterrevolutionary sabotage on a large scale. Thus, the ruling Senate - a loyal chain-dog of the bourgeoisie and landowners of tsarist Russia - having learned about the adoption of Decree No. 1 on the court, hastily gathered on November 24, 1917 and made the following decision: , to unswervingly fulfill, pending the decision of the Constituent Assembly on the formation of the authorities in the country, the duties imposed on the Senate by law, as long as there is any opportunity for this, and let all subordinate places and persons know about it. th department for publication in the "Collection of legalizations and orders of the government" 27.
The voice of the ruling Senate was quickly heard and picked up by its partners in the fight against the measures of the Soviet government in other cities and regions of Russia. So, on November 26, 1917, the Petrograd Bar, together with other judicial ranks of the city (starting with the magistrate and ending with the senator), expressed their attitude to this decree at a specially convened meeting (first separately, and then jointly). In the resolution of the said meeting, it was said that the legal profession and judicial ranks of Petrograd added their vote to that of the ruling Senate. They refused to recognize Decree No. 1 on the court as a law, believing that it came from a body that did not represent the government of the country. Lawyers and judicial officials pledged their allegiance to the ruling Senate and pledged to continue their activities, guided by the laws of the ousted governments. Employees of the Moscow District Court expressed their attitude to the new, revolutionary court in a special resolution adopted in the first days after the victory of the October Revolution. "The Moscow district court in the general meeting, according to the conclusion of the prosecutor of the court, on November 11, 1917, ruled: temporarily, pending the ordering of all office work, to suspend classes in the courthouse, with the exception of classes administrative court on cases of elections to the Constituent Assembly "29.
The Moscow advocacy did not remain in debt to its partners. On December 3, 1917, she made the following decision: "The meeting of jury attorneys of the Moscow district on December 3, 1917, having discussed the issue of attempts to put obstacles to the correct administration of justice and fully sharing the opinion of both the ruling Senate, set out in the definition of its general meeting, court rulings, decided:
1. To continue the activities of the sworn advocacy on the basis established for the estate of attorneys at law and their assistants by the judicial statutes of November 20, 1864 and the statutes published in the prescribed manner ...
2. To recognize that changes in the organization of the court and the estate of attorneys at law can be made only on the basis that will be established by a freely elected Constituent Assembly, provided that its full freedom of activity is ensured, as well as the inviolability and personal safety of all its members. "
Just as hostile to the decree was the justices of the peace, for the most part unfriendly to the Soviet regime. So, in the resolution of the Congress of Moscow Justices of the Peace of November 27, 1917, it was stated: "1. To recognize that the violence committed did not create a legitimate government that is popularly recognized and has the right of supreme control, administrative order and the issuance of laws; 2. Activities of the judicial and peace institutions continue only on the basis of laws promulgated in due course by the Senate and binding ordinances issued by the competent authorities local government based existing laws; 3. Recognize that only a violent violation of the principles of an independent court can compel justices of the peace to temporarily suspend their activities. ”31
The above decisions show with all convincingness and clarity the true attitude of the classes hostile to the socialist revolution, represented by senior judicial and prosecutorial officials, towards the new, revolutionary court. With all their being, they hated this judgment. They waged a fierce, open and covert struggle against the Soviet court and legislation. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, as it was established at the trial of the "Rights and Trotskyist" bloc in 1938, being loyal lackeys of the domestic and foreign bourgeoisie, led this counter-revolutionary struggle against Soviet power from the very first days of its existence.
The savage slander against the Soviet court and law, poured out in abundance on the pages of the counter-revolutionary press, was given a worthy rebuff by V. I. Lenin in his report "On the Activities of the Council of People's Commissars" on January 11, 1918 at the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets. He said: “Let them shout that we, without reforming the old court, immediately scrapped it. We cleared the way for a real people's court” 32.
After the publication of Decree No. 1 on the court, the old judicial institutions continued arbitrarily in the name of the Provisional Government to pass sentences and decisions, not recognizing the Soviet government, its laws and new, revolutionary courts. The old judicial and prosecutorial officials responded with sabotage to the events of the Soviet state. Attempts to "peacefully" force the old judicial institutions to cease their activities were unsuccessful.
The Military Revolutionary Committee only with the help of armed Red Guards was able to close the old judicial institutions. So, on December 3, 1917, an authorized representative of the Investigative Commission of the Military Revolutionary Committee notified the population of the city of Petrograd about the following: On November 29, this year, I closed: the ruling Senate, the main military court with military prosecutor's supervision of military investigators, and the Petrograd commercial court, leaving the guard to protect the affairs and property of closed institutions.
I drew up acts on the closure of the listed institutions in the presence of former officials and employees of the institutions. The acts were sealed by representatives of both closed institutions and by the organization of the service
Summing up the results of the traversed path after the victory of the October Revolution and outlining the immediate tasks of the Soviet regime, V. I. Lenin wrote in March 1918: “The court in capitalist society was predominantly an apparatus of oppression, an apparatus of bourgeois exploitation. institutions (this task was limited to the Cadets and their echoes, the Mensheviks and Right Socialist-Revolutionaries), but to completely destroy and sweep to the ground the entire old court and its apparatus. court, or rather, the Soviet court, built on the principle of participation of the working people and the exploited classes - and only these classes - in the administration of the state "34.
Decree No. 1 on the court was the embodiment of the immortal teaching of Marxism-Leninism about the destruction of the bourgeois-landlord exploitative state machine: the army, police, court and law - and on the creation on its ruins of a new, socialist state of workers and peasants, a new court and a new, revolutionary law ...
The first decree on the court to its foundations destroyed the old judicial system and the old law, which served only the interests of the ruling classes and were in their hands an instrument of suppression and exploitation of the working masses. Instead, the decree created a new, Soviet court and a new, socialist law - a powerful instrument in the hands of the working class to defend the gains of the proletarian revolution, to protect the interests of the working people.
The Soviet court is the brainchild of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Decree No. 1 on the court proclaimed for the first time the basic democratic principles in the organization and activities of a new, revolutionary court: the election and turnover of judges, the openness and immediacy of the trial, legal proceedings in the language of the local nationality, ensuring the right of the accused to defense, etc. These are remarkable principles of the socialist democracy firmly formed the basis for the development of the Soviet court and socialist law. They fully and completely justified themselves throughout the existence of Soviet power.
The elections of the people's courts took place in an atmosphere of world-historic victories on all fronts of socialist construction, won by our people under the wise leadership of the party of Lenin and Stalin. They were a powerful new demonstration of Soviet patriotism and the invincible strength of the moral and political unity of our society. The elections of the people's courts will further strengthen socialist legality and enhance the authority of the Soviet court. By actively participating in the elections of the people's courts, the Soviet people demonstrated their solidarity, selfless devotion and love for our leader and teacher, the great Stalin.
Thus, from the first days of its existence, the Soviet court served and serves the interests of the socialist state, the interests of the working people. He mercilessly inflicted and is inflicting crushing blows on the enemies of the Soviet regime, on all those who tried and are trying to harm the socialist state, its legal order, established in the interests of the entire Soviet people. The Soviet court, fulfilling the will of our people, vigilantly guarded and protects the economic basis of the Soviet system - state and public socialist property.
The Soviet court not only mercilessly suppressed the resistance of the remnants of the hostile classes, but also carried out and continues to work hard to eradicate the remnants of capitalism in the minds of the working people themselves.
Our court plays a colossal role in the struggle to strengthen a new culture and a new way of life. "The good organization of the court and its high authority," said V. M. Molotov, "... in many respects strengthens the new culture and new way of life, in many respects strengthens the socialist system." Special meaning this task is acquiring at the present time, when our people, under the wise leadership of the great Stalin, are carrying out an ambitious program for the restoration and development of everything National economy, confidently and boldly goes forward, from socialism to communism.
35 V. Molotov. Articles and speeches, p. 192. Partizdat. 1937.
P. .. Date of update: 14.11.2015. URL: https: // site / m / articles / view / FROM-HISTORY-FIRST-DECREE-ON-COURT (date of access: 19.02.FROM THE HISTORY OF LAW
Decree No. 1 on the Court: the history of the preparation and its content
VERESHCHAGINA Alla Vasilievna,
Head of the Department of Public Law of the Vladivostok Institute of Law and Management state university economics and service, candidate legal sciences, assistant professor
In the literature on the history of the formation of the Soviet judicial system and legal proceedings, the point of view about the purposeful nature of the Soviet judicial reform, which was initiated by Decree No. 1 on the court1, which became the basis for the formation of a distinctive judicial system that is fundamentally different from the bourgeois criminal procedure2, has developed and dominates.
It seems that this point of view is not entirely consistent with the history of the preparation, adoption and content of Decree No. 1 on the court3. As you know, the set of acts adopted by the Bolsheviks after the seizure of power in order to legitimize it did not include a document on the judicial system4. Only in the second
1 This approach is set forth in the works of L.I. Antonova, M.V. Kozhevnikov, D.I.Kursky, N.V. Krylenko, P.G. Mishunin, V.P. Port-nov, M.M. P. I. Stuchki.
2 This statement also applies to the formation civil proceedings Soviet Russia.
3 See: Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On the Court" // Newspaper of the Provisional Workers 'and Peasants' Government. 1917. No. 17; Collection of legalizations. 1917. No. 4. Art. 50.
4 One of the active participants in the
construction of J. Berman in his old
thie, dedicated to the first decrees, never
does not mention Decree No. 1, which confirms
is our judgment about the forced character-
re judicial reform of 1917 (see: Berman J.
In the middle of November 1917, Decree No. 1 on the court appeared, declaring the abolition of the judicial system of the previous regime. The Bolsheviks did not initially envisage the modernization of justice, and only the situation that developed after the change of government forced them to take steps in this direction.
After the overthrow of the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks, based on the experience of the February Revolution, probably expected that, as with the change of regime in February 1917, the courts would continue to function and make decisions on behalf of the new government. This is probably why “about law, about justice, in general, as if they had forgotten” 5. Appointment of the People's Commissar of Justice G. I. Oppokov (Lomov), who was in Moscow6 and about whom "... everyone knew that he would hardly leave Moscow and would hardly leave politics and become the head of justice in Soviet Russia" 7, became a confirmation of the lack of intentions of the
The decrees of the October // Soviet state. 1933. No. 6. S. 3-20).
5 Stuchka P. Five years of the revolution of law // Weekly Soviet Justice. 1922. No. 44-45. P. 1.
6 On the creation of the first government of the Soviet Republic, see, for example: Gorodetsky E. N. The birth of the Soviet state 1917-1918 / otv. ed. I. I. Mints. M., 1987; Shmelev A. N, Losev E. N. From the history of the creation of the socialist state // From the history of the Great October Revolution and the Civil War (1917-1920): interuniversity. Sat. / ed. V. A. Smyshlyaeva, P. F. Metelkova, A. N. Shmeleva. L., 1990.S. 60-70.
7 P. Stuchka. Five years of the revolution of law. P. 1.
debate reform. In addition, in the purely Bolshevik Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom), the Left Social Revolutionaries were promised a People's Commissariat of Justice if they joined the government, and "the general opinion was that there was nothing to rush with this Commissariat at all."
According to the recollections of the first Soviet judicial figures, justice was not considered as a key area of activity of the first Soviet government. Even after the adoption of Decree No. 1, judicial activity was not considered prestigious. It was viewed as secondary, not requiring special attention, the best were not mobilized for this work9.
By the middle of November 1917, it became obvious that civil servants, including representatives of the magistracy, were not going to cooperate with the workers 'and peasants' government. In Petrograd, although some courts worked, they passed decisions on behalf of the overthrown Provisional Government, which was rightly regarded by the Bolsheviks as agitation against them. "The court seemed to be something outsiders, the revolution allowed for a whole month that in hundreds of cells, in its own camp, open, legal agitation for the Provisional Government was proclaimed, against whose supporters an armed struggle was immediately waged."
At a meeting of the All-Russian Central executive committee(All-Russian Central Executive Committee) November 10, 1917 P. I. Stuchka made a report on the new court, and on the same day his article on the main provisions
8 Stuchka P. Five years of the revolution of law. S. 1 ..
9 See: Rostovsky I. How the People's Court Worked in 1918 // Soviet Justice Weekly. 1922. No. 44-45. P. 16.
10 Stuchka P. Proletarian revolution and court // Proletarian revolution and law. 1918.No. 1.S. 1.
Decree No. 1 on the Court11. The commission, which consisted of five people, did not start work, in any case, the CEC minutes and the materials available to them do not contain any notes about this12. Later, on November 14, 1917, the newspaper Pravda published a report on the development of a draft decree on revolutionary courts. The draft was repeatedly considered at meetings of the CEC, its legal commission, the CEC Presidium, but no final decision was made13. Probably, this was the reason why the issue of the draft Decree No. 1 began to be considered by the Council of People's Commissars, on the agenda of which its discussion was also repeatedly included and postponed14.
Ultimately, Decree No. 1 was adopted by the Council of People's Commissars on November 22, 1917.
11 See: P. Stuchka. Class or Democratic Court // Pravda. 1917. No. 185. In his memoirs, he writes that they, together with M. Kozlovsky, prepared the project on their own initiative even before his (P. Stuchka) appointment as temporary commissioner of justice (see: P. Stuchka Five years of the revolution of law. . 1).
12 See: P. Mishunin. From the history of the first decree on the court // Questions of history. 1949. No. 4. P. 11.
13 For more details see: P. Mishunin From the history of the first decree on the court. S. 11-12. Researchers associate the ineffectiveness of the CEC's work on the decree with the opposition of the Bolsheviks in this body. It should be noted that P. Mishunin's works emphasize the role of I. Stalin in the preparation of Decree No. 1. The pedaling of the role of I. Stalin and the critic P. Stuchka, who distorted, according to P. Mishunin, the history of the creation of Decree No. 1, can be explained by the dating of research. See: Mishunin P.G. Essays on the history of Soviet criminal law 1917-1918. M., 1954.S. 21-22, 41.
14 According to the memoirs of P. I. Stuchka, and in
SNK, which consisted entirely of
members of the RSDLP (b) party, the project met with
resistance (see: P. Stuchka. Five years of the revolution of law. S. 2).
order, the settlement of disputes became vital, including for giving legitimacy to the new government, confirming its prerogative to use reprisals15 for violation of the established Soviet power norms that formalized Soviet statehood and aimed at protecting it16.
The decision of the Council of People's Commissars stated the reasons for the adoption of Decree No. 1 by this very body: repeated discussion of the draft in the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars; elimination of serious comments; slowing down the passage of the draft by some factions of the CEC for reasons that were of an accidental nature and were outside the scope of the question of the court; the helplessness of the government in the absence of a court in the face of crime, counter-revolution and sabotage; the possibility, on the basis of decisions and resolutions of the CEC and existing precedents, for the government to adopt laws with their subsequent submission to the CEC; substantiation of the legitimacy of the adoption of Decree No. 1 by the Council of People's Commissars, which, in the opinion of its members, in no way exceeded its powers17.
The motive given in the decision of the Council of People's Commissars - the helplessness of the government in the absence of a court - emphasizes its forced and extraordinary character.
15 As you know, this is one of the main signs of the presence or absence of a state in a particular society.
16 For the history of the preparation of Decree No. 1, the content of its drafts, the attitude of the legal community to this act, see: Gorodetsky E. N. Decree. op. S. 196-202; Kozhevnikov M.V. History of the Soviet court / ed. I. T. Golyakova. M., 1948.S. 24-25; Und-Revich V. Struggle for the court of the proletarian dictatorship in the first months of the October Revolution // Soviet state and law. 1931. No. 5-6. S. 61-68.
17 See: P. Mishunin. From the history of the first decree on the court. P. 13.
The provisions of Decree No. 1 only outlined the "contours" of justice, which indicated that the Bolsheviks had no ideas about the desired judicial system and legal proceedings. The Bolsheviks themselves recognized the theoretical undeveloped nature of the issues of judicial construction, the significance and role of law in the proletarian revolution18.
In the program of the RSDLP regarding justice, two provisions were formulated: the election of all judges by the people (paragraph 10) and the right to prosecute any official before the jury in the usual manner (paragraph 11) 19, i.e., the abandonment of administrative privileges20 and the restoration of the jurisdiction of the jury for service 21.
18 See: V. Undrevich Decree. op. P. 61.
19 See: Program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party adopted at the XI Congress of the Party // Communist Party of the Soviet Union in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. M., 1983.T. 1.S. 62.
20 The elimination of administrative privileges from the criminal process was the subject of scientific discussions at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. Proposals were developed and bills were prepared to improve the criminal procedural legislation in this part (see, for example: Antsiferov K.D. S. 2-3; Lozina-Lozinsky M.A. officials administrative department // Journal of the Ministry of Justice. 1894/95. No. 11. S. 51 et seq .; K.P. Pobedonostsev Editorial article on the need for participation administrative authority in matters of initiating criminal prosecution and bringing to justice against officials under her jurisdiction // Saint-Petersburg Vedomosti. 1884. No. 33. S. 1; No. 34, p. 1.
21 Most essential jurisdiction
jury service was
V. Undrevich described these provisions as "elementary bourgeois-democratic demands" 22.
The act does not set out the motives that prompted the new government to decide on the abolition of all judicial regulations that have been existing so far. The root cause, as mentioned above, is contained in the decision of the Council of People's Commissars. And only later did the Marxist-Leninist substantiation of the need to abolish the judicial system of the previous regimes appear in connection with the coming to power of the Bolsheviks, which began in the introduction to the draft Decree No. 1: “The Great Workers 'and Peasants' Revolution destroys the foundations of the old, bourgeois order, based on exploitation labor capital, and causes the need for a radical breakdown of old legal institutions and institutions, old codes of law, adapted to obsolete public relations, and the creation of new truly democratic institutions and laws. The workers 'and peasants' government is faced with the urgent creative task of creating new courts and working out new laws that should reflect the legal consciousness of the broad masses of the people. But at the present moment of life, it urgently demands the destruction of the outdated judicial bureaucratic and qualifying bourgeois apparatus and the abolition of the actions of those who have retained their strength to this day.
abbreviated by the Law of July 7, 1889 "On changing the order of jurisdiction of cases for certain crimes subject to judicial jurisdiction with the participation of jurors", which was motivated by the lack of preparation of society to participate in the administration of justice in this form. Similar motives for limiting the jurisdiction of the jury are also cited by contemporary Russian lawmakers.
22 See: V. Undrevich, Op. P. 65.
hateful to the revolutionary
comprehension of laws ".
The reference in the cited quotation to the destruction of the "judicial bureaucratic and census bourgeois apparatus" as a primary task, gives an understanding that the substantive part of the activities of justice is determined by the quality of the magistracy.
By the beginning of the XX century. this approach was generally accepted both in Russia and in Europe. “Despite the mania for legislation that rages in all countries24,” wrote E. Ferry, “it is quite obvious that the operation of laws depends entirely on the qualities of people who are responsible for their application. A bad law applied by good judges will yield much better results than a law that is theoretically excellent but applied by incapable judges ”25.
Decree No. 1 was of a cross-sectoral nature: it contained judicial norms and norms of criminal and civil procedural law, which made it akin to acts of societies with active political genesis. For example, the same act was Russkaya Pravda, in which there were practically no judicial and procedural regulations, there were no clear concepts, the unlawfulness of the act was determined by the notions of the litigants about the violated right, who turned to the eligible
23 Draft decree No. 1 on the court // Materials People's Commissariat justice. Issue II. M., 1918.S. 103-104.
24 Legislative mania is inherent modern government in Russia, which often considers the adoption of laws or their amendment to be the only way to solve problems.
25Ferry E. Criminal sociology / comp.
V.S. Ovchinsky. M., 2005. S. 540. Similar statements can be found in the works of Russian pre-revolutionary proceduralists, for example, V.P. Danevsky, I.V. Mikhailovsky, I. Ya. Foinitsky, and others.
bodies, and the representations of the competent authorities themselves that resolved the dispute26.
The act laid down the polysystemic nature of justice inherent in the pre-October period: it contained the regulation of two-station local courts; creation of regimental courts as an analogue of local courts in the army; mention was made of the prospects for the adoption of a special decree on legal proceedings to resolve cases that are not subject to local courts, that is, a different system of courts than local ones; revolutionary tribunals were established; the formation of arbitration courts was supposed to resolve civil cases and cases of private prosecution.
Most attention in the Decree on the Court was given the regulation of the organizational aspects of the institution of local courts, which replaced the magistrates' courts. The first instance consisted of local courts, the second - district congresses of local judges. Local people's courts were established with one permanent judge and two regular assessors (Art. 2).
The above system of local courts reproduces the pre-revolutionary analogue, and the regulation of the composition of the collegium is borrowed from the acts of the Provisional Government on temporary courts.
Permanent local judges, unlike magistrates, were to be directly elected. The direct nature of the election of judges was contrasted with the indirect election of justices of the peace that existed before October 1917 (Art. 2 of the Decree).
Until direct democratic elections are held, temporarily
26 See: Vereshchagina A. V. Formation and development of criminal justice in Russia: the pre-revolutionary period. Vladivostok, 2009.S. 14-29. Later acts (Code of Laws of Ivan III and Ivan IV, Cathedral Code of Alexei Mikhailovich), although they were of an intersectoral nature, were more specific.
the election of local judges by district and volost or uyezd, city and provincial Soviets of workers', soldiers' and peasants' deputies, if there were no volost and district councils, was preferable.
The procedure for the formation of the judiciary through direct elections has been criticized in the literature. One of the authors of Decree No. 1 PI Stuchka called this situation forced, since there were still illusions about the Constituent Assembly, it was necessary to reckon with the opinion of the Left Social Revolutionaries27. NV Krylenko assessed this norm as an error. Subsequently, he clarified his position, emphasizing that the elections were unacceptable for that time. J. L. Berman also recognized the direct election of judges as a mistake, which reflected the preservation of the well-known bourgeois-democratic illusions and the impossibility of foreseeing at the time of the publication of the decree "the force of limiting the exploiting classes." The fixed procedure for the formation of people's courts, in his opinion, led to their weakness and to the fact that the revolutionary tribunals considered the most serious criminal cases29.
Can it be considered that the declaration of direct elections of judges and their replacement for a time, as follows from Decree No. 1, by election by the Soviets, and in fact by the executive committees of the Soviets, was a trick on the part of the authorities? It is difficult to give an unambiguous answer to this question, but we are close to the position of V. Undrevich, who believed that the provision of the Decree on direct democratic elections of judges was neither an objective mistake, nor “a logical absurdity.
27 See: P. Stuchka. Five years of the revolution of law. P. 3.
28 See: N. V. Krylenko. Judicial system of the RSFSR: lectures on the theory and history of the judicial system. M., 1923.S. 25-26.
29Berman Ya. L. Essays on the history of the RSFSR legal proceedings. M., 1924.S. 4, 6-8.
stu ". He accurately noted that Decree No. 1, establishing such a procedure in fact, ... made the councils the basis for their organization, formally (and this was just temporary) (italics mine. - A. V.), without abandoning the principle of democratic elections .. ."thirty.
In fact, the judiciary was formed by the executive committees of the Soviets, which were characterized by a meeting character, many hours of meetings, endless discussions, etc. “The Council immensely increased the hustle and bustle, disorder and confusion in the palace of the revolution. This was done, finally, unbearable for the members of the Executive Committee ... "31. In the context of a momentarily changing situation, making decisions through the Council was unacceptable, therefore, in fact, from the moment of its creation, the Soviet state was not a state of Soviets, it was a state of executive committees of Soviets. It is no coincidence that V. I. Lenin headed not the Central Executive Committee, but the Council of People's Commissars, a more mobile body, more adapted for the rapid adoption of administrative measures, especially in extraordinary conditions. In addition, representatives of Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries predominated in the Soviets in 1917, which made it difficult to make desirable decisions through this body.
The consolidation of the election procedure by the Soviets, and in fact, the appointment by the executive committees, contradicted the slogan "All power to the Soviets" and the alignment of political forces: the Bolsheviks, as you know, were not supported by the majority of the population. This adjustment, designated by the Bolsheviks as temporary, allowed them to place cadres at their own discretion, and later, after the usurpation of power, became the main way of forming the judiciary.
30 Undrevich V. Decree. op. P. 68.
31 Burdzhalov E. N. The second Russian revolution. The uprising in Petrograd. M., 1967.S. 366.
The experience of holding elections of judges in a number of provinces in late 1917 - early 1918 showed that the peasants did not elect appointees from the city. It seems that for the Bolsheviks this was another confirmation of the inexpediency of holding direct elections, and the procedure, designated in Decree No. 1 as temporary, became permanent. The election of members of the judicial seats by the executive committees of the Soviets or Soviets allowed the Bolsheviks to manipulate this process without any complications.
Two regular assessors who were on the board were invited to each session on special lists. The lists were to be drawn up by the same Soviets, which were granted the right to temporarily elect permanent local judges (Art. 2 of the Decree).
Justices of the peace of the royal courts could be elected to the posts of local judges. In the provinces, some justices of the peace have taken advantage of this opportunity, although in both capitals their involvement in local courts has been negligible. The need to attract representatives of the tsarist magistracy was explained by the lack of "written technical manuals" for conducting litigation... This gap had to be filled by bourgeois "specialists". The judges, by their equal participation in the consideration and resolution of the case, could pursue the policy desirable for the Bolsheviks in accordance with their revolutionary legal consciousness - the main source of decision-making.
The criterion for the jurisdiction of local people's courts in criminal cases was the severity of the punishment they could impose (no more than two years in prison) (Article 2 of the Decree), that is, it roughly corresponded to the jurisdiction of the abolished magistrates' courts. As for the remaining categories of cases, their jurisdiction was to be determined by a special decree.
The appellate review of decisions was canceled. To appeal against sentences of imprisonment for a term exceeding seven days, cassation was allowed to the county or capital congress of local judges (Art. 2 of the Decree). Provision was made for the consideration of private prosecution cases by the arbitral tribunal (Article 6 of the Decree) 32. The right to pardon and restoration of rights was granted judiciary(Art. 7 of the Decree) 33.
If the activity of peace justice was suspended by Decree No. 1, then all other institutions of criminal justice - district courts, judicial chambers, the Government Senate, military, maritime and commercial courts, judicial investigators, prosecutorial supervision, jury and private legal profession - were destroyed by it.
This approach is somewhat illogical, and it is difficult to find any intelligible explanation for the abolition of all institutions, with the exception of world justice, whose activity was suspended. Either the legislator regarded the magistrates 'courts as the most democratic part of the tsarist justice34, or, having abandoned radical statements in relation to the magistrates' courts, hoped to involve the “former
32 Some parallels can be drawn here with modern attempts to find alternative ways of resolving conflicts, including through the use of mediation.
33 Probably, this provision emphasized the rejection of pardon as an attribute of royal power. At the same time, such a formulation sees the recognition of the prerogative of the judicial authorities to correct the decisions it has made, arising from the principle of separation of powers.
34 It should be borne in mind that the world
judges were given census requirements, although some of them were less
tough, for example, due to the lack of lawyers with higher education, the educational qualification was relaxed, property requirements were slightly reduced.
justices of the peace ”, which was announced in the decree (Art. 2). The interest in the functioning of local courts was associated with their rather extensive jurisdiction, which included the most common civil disputes and criminal acts, which was important for the authorities.
Replacing the eradicated forensic investigators preliminary investigation in accordance with Decree No. 1, the judges were single-handedly performed by local judges. Judicial control over the application of measures procedural compulsion- personal detention - and the validity of the trial was assigned to the entire composition of the local court, which was supposed to confirm the legality of these decisions. In the roles of prosecutors and defenders, both at the preliminary investigation and in court, all non-discredited citizens of both sexes, who enjoyed civil rights, acted instead of prosecutors and juries and private attorneys (Article 3 of the Decree).
Almost absent from the Decree procedural rules... Mention was made only of the prospect of issuing special decrees on the procedure for further direction and movement of unfinished cases (Article 1), on the suspension of all terms in cases from October 25, 1917 until the adoption of a special decree, and on legal proceedings in other cases (Article 2).
This gap was filled by permission to apply procedural legislation overthrown governments, if it was not abolished by the revolution and did not contradict the revolutionary conscience and revolutionary legal consciousness (Art. 5). All laws that contradicted the decrees of the Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies and the Workers' and Peasants' Government, as well as the minimum programs of the RSDLP and the Party of Social Revolutionaries were recognized as canceled.
The ability to apply the legislation of previous regimes, which
paradise was absent in the draft Decree No. 1, along with the possibility of attracting justices of the peace to work in local courts, was considered in the literature as a concession to opponents of a radical breakdown of the judicial apparatus and the destruction of old laws35.
It seems that the presence of these provisions is not only a consequence of the transitional nature of this act, but also a tactical decision, which was recognized by the Bolsheviks. Let us cite the eloquent judgment of JV Stalin on this score: “The new government creates a new legality, a new order, which is a revolutionary order ... legality "36.
The impossibility of the momentary development of normative legal acts, the illiteracy of a significant part of the population involved in judicial activity- these are, in our opinion, the main reasons that prompted the abandonment of the radical provisions of the draft Decree No. 1 and caused the involvement of bourgeois specialists.
Thus, Decree No. 1 consolidated the polysystemic model of the organization of justice in the pre-October period.
The local court represented a symbiosis of the magistrate and provisional courts. Their two-station system and jurisdiction were similar to the magistrates' courts of tsarist Russia, and the genesis of the composition of the collegium and its formation was
35 See: P. Stuchka. Five Years of the Revolution of Law. S. 2-3. Even in a simplified version compared to the draft, Decree No. 1 seemed to some lawyers who “stood on the Soviet platform”, for example, S. B. Chlenov, too radical. He argued the impossibility of "a break in the administration of justice" (see: E. Pashukanis The first months of the existence of the Moscow People's Court // Weekly Soviet Justice. 1922. No. 44-45. P. 13).
36 Cit. Quoted from: Mishunin P.G. Essays on the history of Soviet criminal law 1917-1918. P. 27.
studied at the Institute of Provisional Courts of the Provisional Government. The statement on the creation of revolutionary tribunals (before the revolution - extraordinary courts), regimental, i.e. military courts, as well as a system of courts that will have jurisdiction over cases not attributed to the competence of local courts (similar to district courts and judicial chambers) indicates that that the Bolsheviks borrowed the organization of pre-revolutionary justice.
Institutes of assessors, composition of the judicial board, source legal regulation- the revolutionary sense of justice was tested in the inter-revolutionary period. Some norms (sometimes in a peculiar form) implemented the proposals of pre-revolutionary lawyers to improve criminal justice: admitting defense to pre-trial proceedings, exercising judicial control over the application of procedural coercion measures37, conducting a preliminary investigation by a magistrate38.
Decree No. 1 also contained provisions that later became a distinctive feature of Soviet criminal justice, in particular, the refusal to review cases on appeal, the procedure for the formation of the judiciary, etc.
Thus, Decree No. 1 can be characterized as ambivalent (most of the provisions were borrowed from the previous legislation, although there were the beginnings of new institutions), a short and fragmentary act (only some elements of actually one institution - local courts were regulated), which did not destroy
37 Before the revolution, judicial control over pre-trial proceedings the compilers of the Judicial Charters saw in the attribution of judicial investigators to judicial places.
38 The vesting of justices of the peace with the right to conduct a preliminary investigation was discussed in connection with the idea of considering some cases, amenable to justices of the peace, with the participation of jurors.
justice, although it said about it. The decree formalized the current situation - justice ceased to exist due to both the refusal of representatives of the legal community to cooperate, and two waves (February and October 1917) of the defeat of judicial seats, so it had to be recreated.
The socio-political context of the development and adoption of Decree No. 1 on the court and its content allow us to conclude that the judicial reform, which was initiated by this act, was of a forced and spontaneous nature. At the first stage, the designs proposed by the Decree were similar to those of the pre-October period. At the same time, Decree No. 1 consolidated provisions, the further testing of which made it possible to recognize them as suitable (sometimes in a modified version) for the emerging statehood and which subsequently formed the specific features of the judicial system and criminal proceedings of the Soviet period.
Bibliographic list
Antsiferov K. D. On the need to reform the modern order of prosecution for official crimes according to the charter of criminal proceedings // St. Petersburg vedomosti. 1884. No. 30.
Berman J. The decrees of October // Soviet state. 1933. No. 6.
Berman Ya. L. Essays on the history of the RSFSR legal proceedings. M., 1924.
Burdzhalov E. N. The second Russian revolution. The uprising in Petrograd. M., 1967.
Vereshchagina A. V. Formation and development of criminal justice in Russia: the pre-revolutionary period. Vladivostok, 2009.
Gorodetsky E. N. The birth of the Soviet state 1917-1918 / otv. ed. I. I. Mints. M., 1987.
Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On the Court" // Newspaper of the Provisional Workers 'and Peasants' Government. 1917. No. 17.
Kozhevnikov M.V. History of the Soviet court / ed. I. T. Golyakova. M., 1948.
Krylenko N.V. Judicial system of the RSFSR: lectures on the theory and history of the judicial system. M., 1923.
Lozina-Lozinsky M.A. 1894/95. No. 11.
Mishunin P. From the history of the first decree on the court // Questions of history. 1949. No. 4.
Mishunin P.G. Essays on the history of Soviet criminal law 1917-1918. M., 1954.
Pashukanis E. The first months of the existence of the Moscow People's Court // Weekly Soviet Justice. 1922. No. 44-45.
Pobedonostsev K.P. Leading article on the need for the participation of administrative authorities in the initiation of criminal prosecution and prosecution against officials subordinate to it // St. Petersburg vedomosti. 1884. No. 33, 34.
The program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party adopted at the XI Congress of the Party // Communist Party of the Soviet Union in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 1.M., 1983.
Draft decree No. 1 on the court // Materials of the People's Commissariat of Justice. Issue II. M., 1918.
Rostovsky I. How the People's Court Worked in 1918 // Soviet Justice Weekly. 1922. No. 44-45.
Stuchka P. Class or democratic court // Pravda. 1917. No. 185.
Stuchka P. Proletarian revolution and court // Proletarian revolution and law. 1918. No. 1.
Stuchka P. Five years of the revolution of law // Weekly Soviet Justice. 1922. No. 44-45.
Undrevich V. Struggle for the court of the proletarian dictatorship in the first months of the October Revolution // Soviet state and law. 1931. No. 5-6.
Ferry E. Criminal sociology / comp. V.S. Ovchinsky. M., 2005.
Shmelev A. N., Losev E. N. From the history of the creation of a socialist state // From the history of the Great October Revolution and the Civil War (1917-1920): interuniversity. Sat. / ed. V. A. Smyshlyaeva, P. F. Metelkova, A. N. Shmeleva. L., 1990.
Read also:
|
Formation of the Soviet judicial system... An integral part of the state apparatus is the courts, and the construction of the Soviet judicial system begins with the adoption court decree No. 1. This decree abolished the entire pre-revolutionary court system, magistrates' district courts, and judicial chambers. Senate, military, commercial, maritime courts, as well as the bar, prosecutor's office and the institute of judicial investigators. Instead of this system, local courts and revolutionary tribunals were established.
Further development the judicial system is associated with the adoption of the decree on the court number 2 and number 3.
Court Decree No. 2 District People's Courts were introduced to deal with cases beyond the jurisdiction of the local court. In civil cases, the District People's Courts were made up of 3 permanent members of the court and 4 lay judges. Sentences in criminal cases, consisting of 12 assessors and the chairman - a permanent member of the court. Appeal to the appeal procedure, only the cassation of decisions remained. After the cancellation of the decision, the case is transferred for a new consideration in a new composition. The cassation court also had the right to pardon and mitigate punishment. Under the councils, collegia for the rights of intercessors were created. Art. 6 of this decree provided for the creation of a supreme judicial control, the main purpose of which was to achieve a uniform cassation practice, however, this body was never formed in a timely manner, and court decree no. 3 recognized the inexpediency of its creation. Instead, the Court of Cassation was established to deal with complaints against decisions of the district courts. Consisted of civil and criminal divisions, members cassation court approved by the Central Executive Committee, in addition, the decree on the court number 3 significantly expanded the jurisdiction of local people's courts. Now local people's courts considered all criminal cases, with the exception of: cases of crimes encroaching on life, cases of rape, robbery and banditry, counterfeiting of banknotes and speculation, as well as civil claims up to 10,000 rubles.
30. Local courts: composition, basic principles of activity.
They acted in the composition of 1 permanent judge and 2 regular assessors. Local judges d.b. elected on the basis of direct democratic elections by the population, and in fact were elected by local councils. Lists of regular people's assessors were compiled by local councils. Local courts had jurisdiction over minor criminal cases (with a punishment not exceeding 2 years in prison) and minor civil cases with a claim price of up to 3,000 rubles. The investigation of the case was carried out by the judge alone; in most cases, the verdict was not subject to final appeal. In some cases, the law allowed for a cassation appeal of the sentence (the institution of appeals was abolished). The cassation instance for local courts was the county congress of local judges. For large cities, such an instance was the city congress of judges. The cassation appeals were examined by a court of at least 3 local judges.
31. Revolutionary tribunals: formation, composition, jurisdiction. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of May 4, 1918 "On the revolutionary tribunals."
They acted in the composition of 1 chairman and 6 regular assessors. R.T. were elected by the provincial and city councils, jurisdiction was not clearly regulated, initially the roar tribunals were created as extraordinary courts to fight counter-revolution, however, they are considered not only state. crimes, but also crimes of a general criminal nature (banditry, pogroms, hooliganism, speculation). The councils formed an investigative committee of 3 people who investigated the case and then transferred them to the tribunal. January 28, 1918 Adopted a decree on the revolutionary tribunal of the press, which were created at the roar tribunals and consider cases of crimes committed through the use of printed publications. As a punishment, a fine, expression of public censure, suspension of the publication's activities, confiscation of the printing house or the property of the publication, deprivation of political rights, imprisonment, removal from the capital and its borders, the country could be applied.
May 4, 1918 SNK RSFSR accepts decree from revolutionary tribunals, revolutionary tribunals were preserved only in the capitals. Provincial cities and industrial centers, considered the trail of the categories of cases: counter-revolutionary crimes, sabotage, speculation, forgery, misuse Soviet documents, hooliganism and espionage. To consider cases of particular importance on May 16, 1918, a revolutionary tribunal was established at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Composition: chairman and 6 members, elected the All-Russian Central Executive Committee for a period of 3 months. At the tribunal, a central board of prosecutors was established, consisting of 3 people, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was elected. The collegium took part in the work of the commission of inquiry and supported public affairs in all categories of cases considered in the roar tribunal at the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The creation of the cassation department under the All-Russian Central Executive Committee marked the completion of the process of forming the judicial system at this stage. The composition of the cassation department is a chairman appointed by the Council of People's Commissars and approved by the CEC, and 2 members - 1 delegated by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, 1 People's Commissariat of Justice. Considered cassation complaints and protests against decisions of all revolutionary tribunals. The cassation department was given the right to overturn the verdict and transfer the relevant case for a new trial in the same roar tribunal, but with a different composition of the court, or refer it for proceedings to another roar tribunal. If it was discovered that the punishment was not consistent with the severity of the offense, the cassation department had the right to apply to the presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee with a proposal to change the punishment or dismiss the case without sending it for reconsideration.
32. Judicial and legal reform 1922 - 1924.
The NEP of the Soviet state contributed to the transformation of the system of bodies of state power and administration, including judicial institutions, which in the previous period were focused mainly on the fight against crime and the conduct of judicial repression. The reorganization of the judiciary in the country was required and in this situation the preparation of the judicial reform begins. The main prerequisites for the judicial reform of 1922 was a complex of reasons of a political, legal, social and economic nature. The main goal of this reform was to consolidate a unified judicial system, the desire to centralize the Soviet judicial authorities. The judicial reform consolidated the general principles of organizing the council of the judicial system: unity, structure, taking into account the state structure and compliance with the new administrative-territorial division.