We can argue about the particulars, the details, but in general we are looking in one direction and unanimous in questions of principle.

Dear Yuriy Ivanovich! Celebrating anniversaries is never dispense without memories. Therefore we would like to ask you to remember how it all began? How developed? What lessons of the past have been especially useful? What qualitative changes undergone in a judiciary by virtue of the Council of Judges of Russia?

The main achievements of the Council of Judges, which we have every right to be proud of - is the preparation of the laws "On the Status of Judges in theRussian Federation", "On the Judicial System of theRussian Federation" and "On the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of theRussian Federation."

Let’s talk seriatim.

The formation of the Law "On the Status of Judges in theRussian Federation" was started on our initiative. It happened at the first meeting of the Council of Judges - we have elected the Presidium of the Council and instructed him to immediately start preparing the text of the draft law "On the Status of Judges in theRussian Federation."

The first meeting was very emotional, very noisy, which is not surprising. The position of the judiciary in the early 90's was critical. The judges retired by the hundred, practically there was none of who wanted to take up judicial positions - low salary, heavy work, congestion, horrible working conditions, dilapidated buildings, even the lack of the basic necessities for a work.

Therefore at the first meeting of the Council people were tearing off their shirts on chests, screaming, yelling, scolding the Justice Ministry - in general, they were unburdening mind. As a result, all unanimously agreed that the law on the status of judges was necessary to adopt.

Soon the Supreme Court and the Presidential Administration have joined the developers of the draft, and then the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Soviet of the Russia and the President together have introduced it’s legislation to the State Duma in manner of legislative initiative. The case is one-of-a-kind. I personally do not remember that ever again, all three branches of government have introduced legislation to the Parliament. And the speed of the preparation was also unique - the first of its lines were written in March and in June, the law has been passed. It took three months to create the most important law for the judiciary and the country. Neither before nor after it did not happen that time from the start of work on the draft to signing it by the President had taken only three months.

You took as a basis the law "On status of judges in the USSR?"

No, we have prepared an entirely new draft. Law "On status of judges in theUSSR" of 1989 was good and progressive for its time, it firstly introduced the concept of judicial status. But that law has not enshrined guarantees of judicial independence, and many other important statutory provisions, some of which later appeared, even in the Constitution.

So we moved on. The Federal legislation has made the first step, and we continued.

But the law of 1989 was historically important since it gave impulse to self-organization of judges in the community, and, therefore, to create the Council of Judges of Russia. The fact is that the law provided the annual conference of judges. However, the range of issues that should be discussed at those conferences was very narrow. The law required to discuss the issues of judicial practice and conduct the election of Qualification boards. But as the phrase goes, the main thing - to get together, and topics for discussion will be found. And the judges, of course, immediately went beyond the statutory issues, and began to discuss all existing problems, all that by what they were most excited and worried at the moment. And what were those questions? The same old - low wages, staff turnover, greater congestion, degrading working conditions.

The annual conferences became the prototype of the future Council of Judges which was established three years later. Although judges did not have any self-government experience. Even more, their possibilities have been severely circumscribed. The activities of judges are strictly predetermined by a law, they operate in a narrow corridor of opportunities and can not afford to jump beyond it.

This may seem a paradox: judges – governmental people, and judicature - not a public organization, but the judges were the first to create self-governing body. Lawyers, for example, were able to negotiate and create their own non-governmental organization only 10 years after that.

Big trouble required to unite? Do you think that if the judicial system was not in such poor condition, the judge could organize itself?

It is possible that there would be no need for self-organization and the establishment of the Council. When all is well, why change anything? And the trouble is really pushing for change, for development and there were a lot of examples in human history.

Law "On Judicial System of the Russian Federation" also was adopted due to a "good life"?

In a determinate sense - yes. It was adopted in a very anxious time for the judicial system and for the wholeRussia. Then we were literally in one step away from breaking the unitary court system for many regional.

Do you remember 1994 - 1996 years - was the peak of the "parade of sovereignties". The main slogan of those years - take as much power as you can carry. And everybody was taking the maximum power in the region and attempting, including on the judicial power. Some leaders of the subject of theRussian Federationsaid: "What is the sovereignty without a court? Court - an essential attribute of statehood. And it should be represented all branches of government - and the executive, and legislative, and judicial at the level of our region. "

As an argument, they referred to the weakness of the central federal government, that it had no money. They said: "Now the courts are suffering, the central government is unable to provide normal conditions, and we will construct the palaces of justice and properly will finance the court activity."

But the most striking is not that the leaders of the subjects of theRussian Federationwanted to break judicial system into pieces and each would get their share. The most striking thing was that the Russian Government and Presidential Administration supported them in that. They wanted to leave only three federal courts - the Constitutional, the Supreme and the Higher Arbitration, and to make other courts to be local. They referred to theUSA, where is a mixed judicial system, and has already prepared the corresponding changes in the codes. Incidentally, some Caucasian republics have adopted laws on the status of judges, which lowered the level of independence of judges and other essential judicial guarantees. In fact, the judges was being turned to the clerk. And it would have happened if there were no efforts of the judicial community. The most important thing that we have done – we have enshrined in law that the judicial system of theRussian Federationconsists of federal courts.

Just at the last moment, Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Lebedev was able to convince our opponents that it is necessary to adopt a law "On Judicial System of theRussian Federation", and exactly in the version that we have offered.

We had to persuade almost everyone governor, including to get into an argument with such a seemingly invincible heavyweights like Luzhkov, Shaimiev, Rakhimov. Vyacheslav Mikhailovich personally met with every senator. With Each!

But we must pay tribute to senators. Leaders of the Caucasian republics, of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, however, failed to be convinced, but the rest were able to rise above their ambitions, over its sovereignties: they realized that the loss of the unity of the judiciary threatens the Russian statehood and prone to disintegration of the country. They realized that the judicial power - is one of the braces holding the integrity of the state.

Then the Federation Council formed in a completely different principle - its members were the governors and heads of representative bodies of subjects of theRussian Federation. It was decided to vote by notice, because it was almost unreal to muster a quorum prerequisite for the adoption of a constitutional law. On the eve of a vote in the Federation Council we have sought senators for all night, sent out questionnaires in the morning and only took up the required number of votes plus four votes, just in case. December 31 Vyacheslav Mikhailovich called and invited to the announcement of election results.

But what's interesting! When world courts appeared in subjects of Federation, regional leaders have begun together to oppose that, citing the fact that there is no money.

The Law "On Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation" was born in the same type of battles? And also amid of some ill-being?

That's exactly right. Trouble lay in the fact that the Ministry of Justice which has taken control of finances of the judiciary had no interest, no opportunity to defend the interests of the judiciary. Justice was the part of the other branches of government, and, therefore, guided by its interests. But at the same time it did not want to share his authority. And, to put it mildly, the initiative of the Council of Judges to establish a judicial department which will influence the formation of the budget of the judicial system and to control the budget was taken without enthusiasm.

Try it now to take away any any and all functions from the ministry. Moreover, to take away the ability to manage financial resources. Unlikely to succeed.

In other words, if then you have not created the Judicial Department ...

I think that now we wouldn't manage to escape from the tight embrace of the Ministry of Justice. And then everything has worked out well. We have developed a draft law "On Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation," handed it over to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which supported us, and introduced a bill in the State Duma.

Fierce fight was conducted over the bill, but we won. And the judicial power finally was separated from the executive as it required by the principle of separation of powers. That is why the creation of the Judicial Department - a huge step forward in the development of the judicial system.

Let's go back to your first conquest - the Law "On Status of Judges in the Russian Federation." Over the past 15 years the status of judges has undergone any changes?

Unfortunately, it has changed and not for the better. Upwards 1992, when a law was adopted, judicial status come under attack. In order supposedly of improvement, but in fact it turned out the opposite.

And how much damage was caused to the status of judges? Have the fundamental guarantees of judicial activity been affected?

That's the point! The foundation of the foundation of the justice is being eroded, namely the guarantee of the independence of judges, which are enshrined not only in the law on the status of judges, but also in the Constitution and international treaties. Especially these trends have intensified in the last 10 years. Prior to 2001 attacks on the independence were managed to be beaten, but after 2003 it gradually moved towards to infringement of judicial independence. Moreover, the slogans sound right, they all say that we need an independent judiciary, but in fact are trying to cut back independence. Now announced foremost initiative: saying that we must improve mechanisms of a disciplinary responsibility of judges.

And you are still the opponent of extensions of disciplinary sanctions?

Yes. I think it is enough that is enshrined in law. There are agencies that review cases of disciplinary misconduct of judges, they have accumulated a sufficient and proven experience in making decisions on bringing judges to responsibility. Caution or revocation of authority are capable. Reprimand, reduction in wages – what for all of this?

But most importantly - during the discussion of these issues a refrain heard is always reproach: "Judges are not subject to anyone!"

Is that a reproach? Rather, a high score of judges understanding of their duties and status.

Everything depends on the intonation. We often have this phrase to be pronounced with indignation. I mean, "How can it be? Who made such a lack of control? "

If you carefully analyze what it sounds today, including - from the bully pulpits and what about the public is boiling, we see a paradoxical picture. So, we have two problems: on the one hand, judges are too dependent on the other hand, judges are outside the control and not accountable. And, often, both say the same people. Let us, nevertheless, to decide - do we need independent or accountable judge? The third is not given. It cannot be "semi-dependent" or intermediate condition .

Probably, before you start a discussion about this, we must agree on terms. Because we are often wrongly interpreted the independence, namely, as a lack of accountability for misconduct.

Each year, from 50 to 100 judges are not only brought to disciplinary responsibility, but also divest of authority. I think these figures are very eloquent about the fact that judges are strictly liable for the actions that are incompatible with the rank of a judge. Is this not enough? This is a great deal. Now to remove a judge from office is much easier than in Soviet times. Then the judge could be revoked by the voters, but it is a very complex procedure and it is practically not used. Five - six cases in the entireSoviet Union, and not every year. And now - from 50 to 100. Is there a difference?

And the problem is not in the amount of penalties and what authorities will decide the fate of the judges - qualification collegiums or disciplinary presence. The problem is that wicked men often get on judge positions, and a selective system is such that there is no way to select the best.

And why? In imperfect competitive procedures?

There are several reasons. The main is in the absence of a sufficient number of applicants for the position of a judge and a low attainment level of those who participate in competitions. In order to select the best, most professional, one must have from whom to choose. And of the ten candidates for the post of judge of eight people can not even pass a qualifying exam! What does this mean? The fact that a high professional who is very interested in the judicial system, choose another activity. Hence, the incentives for joining the court, to put it mildly are underweight. A hard work, dangerous, and at the level of material is steadily decreasing. But most importantly - the lack of respect for the court.

This is the most important thing?

Of course. The prestige of the profession - is the foundation of its attractiveness. Not money, not security, but the opportunity to be proud of all that is entrusted to you, and knowing that your labor is not only demand but also appreciated by society. And we are all have exactly the opposite. The pressure on the court every year increases, plus real persecution launched on the court from the  expert community and, above all, lawyers. Mud flows so that the mind boggles. Who wants to go for a job like this?

In Soviet times, we were not rich, and have enough difficulties, but it was respected, and for this we have put up with any difficulties.

And what to do?

It's a tough question, like "What to do with rudeness?" or "What to do with legal nihilism?" I think we need to educate people, from childhood to inculcate respect for law and justice. In the so-called civilized countries, which with good reason call themselves the government under law, it goes without saying.

Here is a recent example. Here on my desk - a report of the American Bar Association. Like us, it includes scientists, politicians, judges, corporate lawyers, lawyers. And that's what they write: "The courts of our country are in crisis. Failure of state legislatures to ensure adequate financing conditions sometimes literally closes the doors of our judicial system. Congress reduces its support for the federal courts. As a result, last year the courts of each state were forced to cut budgets and freeze the salaries of judges and their release, dismiss part of the staff, to facilitate the early release of judges to resign, to increase court fees, and even close the courts. " Score of Bar Association - "catastrophic situation".

It's written by lawyers! This is their cry in support of the court facing the congressmen: "Wake up!"

Several years ago we were in theU.S., just at a meeting of one of the sections of the Bar Association. Where attorneys discussed how they would lobby for legislation to raise the salaries of judges. In fact, distributed their lobbying duties: "I'll talk to this Senator, and you must meet with that senator ..." After the meeting, I asked them: "Why do you need this? What are you have the good of judges at heart?" I must say, my question surprised them. They said something like, "What is it? We are most interested in the fact that the judges would be very competent, very professional, very best. "

And our lawyers are making tremendous efforts to discredit the judicial system, set up public opinion against it. They do not realize that they saw off the bough on which they are sitting. Who needs them without a trial?

The legal culture of society is another. And quite a different understanding of their professional and civic responsibility. There is no understanding that humiliated and hounded court is dangerous to society.

So what to do? We know that the Council of judges constantly discusses this issue.

It is being discussed. But we alone are powerless to change the situation. First of all the state should be interested to restore the prestige of the judicial profession. And civil society. And if barks to all the judges are constantly heard from the top, if the judicial community is constantly blamed for the fact that it turned into a adamant corporation, what we could expect of ordinary citizens?

And praise ourrself - not very proper and also useless.

I think that the formation of legal culture and culture in the broadest sense - not the business of the Council of Judges and not the business of judges. Judges should consider matters. What we are doing. Despite the constant underfunding, pressure, transcendental service burden - namely, 20 million cases per year, the judicial system works. Smoothly and clearly. And in that sense - yes, it is adamant. And stable. In the 90s, when many state institutions almost collapsed - the army, the Ministry of the Interior, the court took heat. And, moreover, it was the most democratic body of authority. Even in Soviet times, the courts strictly observed the principles of openness, publicity, and independence from the higher-ups. Democratic principles have always been inherent in the judicial system.

But I never agree with the fact that the judicial system is isolated from society, that it is a kind of "a thing in itself". It is not true. The judicial system is open to the public, and actively participates in the development and improvement of the state. Never has there been such that the judge are fully concentrating on its direct actions - we are always analyzing the current situation and informing the citizens, the legislator and the executive branch with our peer opinion, our ideas. It's as natural as it is necessary, because the trials provide an opportunity to see many of the pressing problems of society, to analyze them and draw conclusions about what needs to be done for their solution.

The Council of Judges as the exponent of the position of the judiciary has always been a platform for discussions and for development optimal, legislative and administrative decisions.

We understand that you are against generalizations? When as an example of one or more unjust decisions are labeled on the entire judicial system.

Of course. You can and should criticize the unjust judgments which, of course, have a place to be. As an example of this - a significant number of legal acts which are reversed by higher courts. But to criticize, and so hard, the entire judicial system - this is wrong, unfair and dangerous. Most of the judges - honest, decent and qualified people.

I believe that both society and the state should look at the situation rationally and put each other real problems. To require crystal clean of judiciary when society is so corrupt, of course, is possible but not feasible in our conditions. There were, are and will be in the judicial ranks of people are unworthy, but you can not ignore the fact that they are consistently gets rid of the judicial system.

I think this attitude to the court - a symptom of ill-being not of the judiciary but the whole society. The easiest way to redirect the flow of aggression in society on the court. The easiest way to specify the court as a main culprit of all our ills. But it is very dangerous because the court is one of the pillars of the state.

In order to destroy the stability and integrity of the state is sufficient to undermine one of its three foundations - the President's power, the power of the legislative or judicial branches. We have repeatedly held but, unfortunately, history does not teach us anything. In the last years of Soviet power abundant criticism of the courts sounded too. And we all know how that ended. The state fell apart.

Judging by the publications in the media society does not trust the court. But opinion polls show that the degree of distrust of the court is greatly exaggerated. In any case, the majority of citizens who have personal experience with the court trust the judicial system.

And statistics confirm the same. In criminal cases, no more than 15% of the decisions are being appealed, in civil - 5%. Where is the distrust? On the contrary, it appears that the vast majority of citizens believe that judicial decisions are reasonable, or at least acceptable.

Yuri Ivanovich! Judicial reform in Russia lasts 20 years, and it is not the end in sight. This is the longest of all our reforms. What is the likelihood that it will ever be completed?

Judicial reform was completed in 2000. This was confirmed by V All-Russian Congress of Judges, which took place in 2000. Speaking at the congress, the President Vladimir Putin said that the basic parameters of the main judicial reform are completed. The concept of judicial reform is implemented, and there is no reason to continue a radical break of the system. If you break down all the time, you can not build anything sensible. No system can withstand the reform for decades. Endless reform - is nonsense. The essence of any reform is to change the basic settings, create new mechanisms to work quietly under the new rules.

Our next task - to improve and customize the mechanism, to finish what is not finished and to go in the direction in which we were going all these years. And repel the attacks of those who want to push us from this path, which in itself is very difficult. One must distinguish between reform and counter-reforms, and react accordingly.

Almost every reform runs into resistance, and judicial reform is not an exception. A strong independent judiciary is necessary not for everyone.

We're back agaim to the independence of judges.

Because without it there is no judgment. Since this is the main target for those who prefer to have an obedient and controlled trial on which they want to influence.

The most striking thing is that the need to subject the court to some or other structures is being spoken openly and without embarrassment. And they put things in such a way that a great democratic achievement.

I remember how German Oskarovich Gref in the early 2000s at an international symposium outlined his vision of the judiciary. He said that court decisions should only enter into force after approval by the Public Body. The audience came to the confusion. How? Court decisions should be upheld by someone?

And no matter how the international community was astonished in such statements, the idea is still alive. And not for nothing that we addressed to the Chairman of theConstitutional Courtfor clarification. We do not really understand how to implement social control of inured judicial acts. Not only core but the procedure of this action is not clear, no court can not do justice without strict compliance with procedural rules. In addition, under the constitutional provision, judges are subject only to the Constitution and federal law but not the requirements of the public. And it so everywhere, in all legal states.

If it would be decided to subordinate courts to the individual members of the public, then it is logical to eliminate the general court as "extra element", and let the public with the sentencing. In fact, such decisions are taken now by some public structures.

You said that the concept of judicial reform is implemented. But still there is a very significant position in the implementation which has not even launch. For example, the concept of creation of administrative justice.

Not only in concept, but also in the Constitution. The newly-elected Russian President said that the administrative courts are needed. But apparently, not all agree with him. So, as you can see, the counter-reform is going on. Apparently,Administrative Courtmay strongly interfere to someone. In addition, in recent years we have seen the confrontation of jurisdictions, although the Constitution clearly states that the administrative courts should exist in the system of courts of general jurisdiction.

Do you think the Council of Judges needs to be reformed? Now this is often told too

I think not. But I know that some members of the judiciary did not like the fact that the Council of Judges places great emphasis in financing of courts. As a rule, these critics have not seen by their own eyes what was happening with the judicial system in the mid-90s, when the court was cut off the electricity, heating, telephone numbers for non-payment. That is what finances.

If we did not pay such attention to financial matters, the situation could happen again. And we have relapses. For example, when the Ministry of Finance sequester the budget of the judiciary, although under the law they had no right to do so without the consent of the Council of Judges. And the Supreme Court of theRussian Federationhad to appeal to theConstitutional Courtto annul the decision of the Ministry of Finance. But despite the fact that theConstitutional Courtadopted a decision on the unconstitutionality of the decision the Ministry of Finance, the Minister of Finance refused to restore the budget of the judiciary. Then, the Council of Judges asked the Attorney General with the requirement to involve the Minister of Finance to criminal liability for failure of theConstitutional Courtand for arbitrariness.

I would like to remind some members of the judiciary soobshestva that compared to the mid 90s to mid-2005 the budget of the judicial system has increased 20 times. Now, of course, a different situation.

A composition of the Council of Judges, its membership, should it be adjusted?

The Council of Judges is unique in the sense that it presents all jurisdictions - and constitutional, and courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration, and justices of the peace. And all levels of courts and judges - judges of the district court to the chief justices of the republics. Such a representation can adequately assess the cindition of the judicial system and its problems.

Do you not agree with the fact that there is many chairmen of courts in the Council of Judges?

I am ready to confirm that it became more of them. In the first Council it was 43% of chairmen, 29% of them are chairmen of regional courts. Now we have 75% of chairmen of courts. Why not? Chairmen of regional courts have more opportunities to influence the policy rather than a district court judge. Council - a working body, which has set itself specific targets and is making efforts (and considerable) to achieve them. We can say we are strengthening the effectiveness of the Council by adding the influence of each of its members. In addition, all regional chairmen and equal courts were at all stages of the judicial career - from the lowest court judges to the Chairman of theRegional Court. And problesm of courts at all levels, they know very well. Therefore, the tendency to increase the number of court chairmen of the Council is justified.

There is another point - increasing the number of chairmen due to the fact that the authority of the Council of Judges chairmen increasingly sought to get there.

I'm not talking about the fact that the Judicial Council is an elected body. We do not call any judges to the Council and told them to do something. He was elected on the Judicial Conference, which means that he is respected so that they are ready to trust him to represent the interests of the judges of the district. A very important point - we do not have "staff". Someone said that the Council of Judges shall be "those who are in the field." That is, as I understand this expression, those who are considering the cases. Since all members not only represent "those who are in the field" but are themselves in the same field of work. Every single member of the Council have procedural powers, everybody consider cases, ranging from a judge of peace to the Chairman of the Supreme Court.

That is nothing to be changed in work and in the formation of the Council of Judges, let it remain as it is?

Why? We are changing and developing. But I am convinced that the bodies of the judiciary must be strengthened, not destroyed. The Council of Judges should strengthen and expand its powers and in the field of personnel policy, and in the control of the Judicial Department.

Now there was a definite bias in favor of strengthening the administrative impact of chairmen of courts. And, perhaps, it would be right to pass some powers of court chairmen to councils of the judges.

Now there are two concepts of leadership of courts. The first is that the Chairman - a leader who is responsible for everything that happens in court. According to the second, the chairman - the first among equals. And the head of the court and the judge, even the first among his colleagues, have completely different functions.

Do you think that the chairman should be the first among equals?

Yes. And if the state chooses this concept, once the question arises: who will lead the apparatus of the court? Who will be responsible for possible cases, for their movement, for the distribution of holidays for all the current activities? Organizing principle must necessarily be. And if the work of the court as an institution is not organized by the chairman, it means that it should deal someone else. You can assign these responsibilities to the Judicial Department, but then it is likely that the department will exalt above the courts, it will be a kind of the ministry of courts. To avoid this, it will be necessary to strengthen the councils of judges and give them additional powers to control the department.

Perhaps another solution of the problem is to pass management functions to the chief of staff. In theU.S., for example, the President of the Court - the first among equals, and the senior court clerk directs the work of court,who incidentally has a very great authority and salary equal to the salary of a judge. But he is under control, the central office of the court is over hom, and over the central office - conference, a balanced system of checks, balances and mutual control has been built.

Ideally, the Chairman should not be a manager. His job - to dispense justice. We differently arranged. As will be further - life will show.

What's in the future plans of the Council of Judges?

Conduct the Congress. It is already clear that it will be difficult. We have to elect a new body of the judiciary - an examination committee. If the law on disciplinary collegiums which are going to separate the functions of appointing judges to the position and consideration of misconduct between the qualifications and disciplinary collegiums will be adopted before the Congress will elect the members of the disciplinary collegiums.

The procedure of election now is a complex, multistage, and it will take a very long time. If we want to carry out the Congress in a normal tempo, constructively and peacefully, the election must be prepared in advance to nominate candidates.

As always, we will sum total of the past four years, we define the prospect.

The new Code of Judicial ethics will be adopted. On the pages of our magazine a new draft code was discussed many times, and many experts evaluated it positively, primarily because it would remove many restrictions of judges when they are communicating with the outside world and, above all, with the media. If earlier court decisions commented mostly lawyers, who, as you said, are often biased and set aggressive, but now the judges could explain the nature of their decisions to the media, which should positively affect the authority of the judiciary.

Yes, at meetings of the ethics commission, which prepared the draft Code, attended by journalists and the result of their interaction with all members of the Council of Judges has been assessed positively. The Commission took into account many of the proposals of the Union of Journalists. In May, we plan to discuss the final version of the Code, then to recommend to the Congress of Judges to accept it. But it is now clear that that would be a good document.

Yuri Ivanovich, the last question about the past and the present. What are the similarities between the first composition of the Council of Judges and the present? How much has changed appearance of the Council  of Judges for 20 years?

The difference is that the first Council was much more emotional. Did I mention that in our meetings have been much debate, shouting and noise. Now it is not because all the issues previously discussed in the committees, the Judicial Department, and not only by judges but also by specialists in various fields. Therefore, the Council meeting is submitting already well-developed questions, respectively, and less controversy and debate when they occur, less passionate.

A general fact that is that we are left like-minded people in the earliest years of the Council, and now. We share common values, common goals and, in general, a common view on how to develop the judicial system. We can argue about the particulars, the details, but in general we are looking in one direction and unanimous in questions of principle.

Thank you!

Published in "judge" № 4, April 2012


Оцените эту публикацию:
Голосов: , Среднее:
Коментарии (0)
Только зарегистрированные пользователи могут оставлять комментарии.