MOSCOW, may 21 — RIA Novosti., the Supreme court explained how the number of procedural errors must allow the judge to lose the mantle: sleep at the meeting is impossible, but to be late for work.
the Court issued the practice in cases of bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility in 2017. There is the case of the judge from Birobidzhan, the sentences which were regularly cancelled due violations of the laws, but in the end he fell asleep in a meeting and lost his job. On the other hand, the court explained the error of the judge of the Arbitration court of Stavropol region of high load and little experience.
In the two years he examined 219 cases, of which only 37 in the General order that requires the examination of evidence and questioning of witnesses. In this appeal repealed and amended 11 23 sentence, six judicial acts cancelled due to incorrect application of the criminal and substantial violation of procedural law, discrepancy of conclusions of court to actual circumstances of the case.
“According to the results of internships, a lack of knowledge of the theory of law and norms of criminal and criminal procedure of the law, inability to motivate its findings, the inability to determine the actual circumstances important for correct consideration of court cases… in addition, on August 19 and 20 October of 2016 he’s in court hearings in the criminal case during the judicial investigation fell asleep, which was the basis for cancellation of the sentence by the appellate court”, — stated in the review.
was his violation of the house rules — failing to report to the General meeting of judges and court personnel, being late for a meeting of judges, absence from work for 1 hour 44 minutes.
“the Disciplinary Board had determined that justice was carried out with a high load trial, in good quality and with a tendency towards improvement. While the official activities of the office of a judge amounted to two years, that is, there is its formation and the formation of skills for the conduct of business may be the faults of planning and errors of the judge in interaction with colleagues,” reads the report.
