судебная власть

Introduction. The judicial constitutional review authorities ensure the supremacy and direct application of the constitutions. They also participates in lawmaking activities. Constitutional review authorities can participate in lawmaking activities directly or circumstantially. There are two kinds of the direct participation of such authorities in lawmaking activities: legislative initiative and participation in lawmaking activities in connection with the implementation of the constitutional review. The methodology of research is based on general scientific and special legal research methods. Theoretical analysis. Some authors note that the decisions of the constitutional review authorities can modify conditions of public life. Authors often emphasize that court decisions that rules certain norms as unconstitutional have the same goals as statutory acts. Empirical analysis. Constitutional courts administer a special kind of lawmaking, such as “positive”, “negative”, “adjusting” and “interpretative” lawmaking. “Positive” lawmaking is connected with the adoption of statutory acts, which regulate the activities of the constitutional courts. “Negative” lawmaking consists in ruling certain legal norms and sources of law unconstitutional and making them void. By means of “adjusting” lawmaking constitutional courts do not rule the norms as completely unconstitutional, but constitutionally interpret them. “Interpretative” lawmaking consists in clarifying legal norms of constitutions. The constitutional review authorities may also provide recommendations to the legislative authorities. Results. The constitutional review authorities can directly participate in lawmaking activities as a legislative initiative or in connection with the implementation of the constitutional control as “positive”, “negative”, “adjusting” and “interpretative” lawmaking. Circumstantial participation of such authorities in lawmaking activities is administered by adopting special messages.

Introduction. In article the requirements to judges and also to candidates for the judge’s position provided by the current legislation of the Russian Federation are considered. Similar requirements inherently represent the system of restrictions of constitutional rights of the person and citizen. Theoretical analysis. The analysis of the current legislation allows to draw a conclusion that requirements imposed to the judge represent the bans connected with acquisition of legal status of the judge, and requirements imposed to candidates for the judge’s position – restrictions. Empirical analysis consisting in the analysis law-enforcement and, in particular, jurisprudence has allowed to draw a conclusion that restrictions have to extend not only to candidates for judges, but also to effective judges and also judges in resignation. In other words, not observance of restrictions has to be considered not only as the basis for refusal in appointment to the post, but also as the basis of dismissal of the judge. Results. The conducted research allows to draw a conclusion, on need to enter into the Law on the status of judges the standard terms of restriction and the bans in the legislation on anti-corruption connected with implementation of certain types of public professional activity.