TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

3

Članek obravnava značilnost socialističnih in nekaterih postsocialističnih pravnih redov – objavljanje dejansko ali celo pravno zavezujočih »stališč o vprašanjih sodne prakse« najvišjih sodišč. Nanje se gleda kot na sredstvo za zagotavljanje enotnosti in koherentnosti sodne prakse, pojavljajo pa se v obliki abstraktnih pravnih stališč, ki se ne sklicujejo na konkreten primer in pod plaščem razlage zakona pogosto vpeljujejo nova pravna pravila. Analiza te posebne vrste sodnega ustvarjanja prava temelji na več primerih smernic Vrhovnega sodišča Ruske federacije, izdanih med leti 2015–2020 v zvezi z nedavno obsežno reformo ruskega civilnega zakonika. Kot izhaja iz obravnavanih smernic, ima Vrhovno sodišče precejšnjo avtonomijo pri razlagi prava, njegova stališča pa pogosto znatno odstopajo od zakonskih določb.

The article revisits a well-known feature of socialist and some post-socialist legal systems, namely the publication by the highest courts of factually or even legally binding “explanations on the questions of judicial practice”. These are viewed as a means to ensure the uniformity and coherence of case law. They take the form of abstract legal statements that do not refer to any particular case and frequently introduce new legal rules under the guise of statutory interpretation. The present analysis of this peculiar type of judicial law-making is based on several examples taken from the guidelines of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, issued between 2015 and 2020, to assimilate the recent large-scale reform of the Russian Civil Code. As evidenced by the examined directives, the Supreme Court wields considerable autonomy in interpreting statutory law and often significantly departs from the legislative provisions.

On the Relationship between Legislation and Supreme Court Guidelines in a Post-Socialist Legal System: Using the Example of the Explanations of the Russian Supreme Court on the Reform of the Civil Code