Problems of differentiation of disciplinary responsibility of judges in legislation and law enforcement practice
- Authors: Nikitina A.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Far Eastern Branch, Russian State University of Justice
- Issue: No 7 (2023)
- Pages: 5-14
- Section: Topical Issue
- Submitted: 25.01.2026
- Accepted: 25.01.2026
- Published: 07.07.2023
- URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/2072-909X/article/view/375629
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.37399/issn2072-909X.2023.7.5-14
- ID: 375629
Cite item
Abstract
The special constitutional and legal status of judges, which guarantees their independence, requires that the rules on their disciplinary responsibility are sufficiently defined and predictable, and their application is based on the principles of fairness, proportionality of disciplinary punishment to the severity of the committed disciplinary offense, individualization of disciplinary responsibility. Among the legislative problems that complicate the implementation of these principles, the author notes the absence of the concept of minor disciplinary misconduct or legally established criteria of insignificance; the gap in legislation regarding the definition of repeated or systematic violations as a basis for the application of disciplinary penalties not related to the early termination of powers; the legislative restriction of the grounds for the use of demotion in the qualification class as a measure of disciplinary responsibility, and a number of other problems.
The purpose of the study is to substantiate the need for legislative establishment of clearer criteria for the application of different types of disciplinary penalties, differentiation of disciplinary offenses of a judge by severity. Research objectives: to identify problems of legislative regulation of differentiation of disciplinary responsibility of judges; based on the practice of qualification boards of judges to demonstrate the problems of application of Article 12.1 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation”; to formulate proposals aimed at solving these problems.
The main method of research was the general scientific dialectical method of cognition, within which universal scientific methods were used: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, formal-logical and systematic. Comparative-legal, formal-legal methods, the method of legal modeling, etc. were used as private-scientific methods.
The result of the study is the proposals made by the author, the implementation of which will improve the effectiveness of the mechanism for bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility, ensure fairness and predictability of decisions made against judges and, ultimately, will guarantee judicial independence.
Full Text
About the authors
Anna V. Nikitina
Far Eastern Branch, Russian State University of Justice
Author for correspondence.
Email: A_Nikitina@inbox.ru
Doctor of Science (Law), Associate Professor, Professor of the Department, Member of the Judges Qualification Committee of the Khabarovsk Territory
Russian Federation, KhabarovskReferences
- Borodin, S. V. To a question of minor offense of the judge (the analysis of changes in the Federal law on the status of judges in the Russian Federation. Rossiyskiy sud’ya = Russian Judge. 2013;(8):35-36. (In Russ.)
- Mamykin, A. S. The organizational and legal mechanism of bringing a judge to disciplinary liability. Rossiyskiy sud’ya = Russian Judge. 2019;(3):39-42. (In Russ.)
- Tyulenev, N. I. The disciplinary liability of judges in the Russian Federation: relevant issues and law enforcement improvement areas. Mirovoj sud’ya = Justice of the Peace. 2020;(7):34-39. (In Russ.)
- Kleandrov, M. I. On the defectiveness of the formula of a disciplinary offense of a Russian judge. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of the Russian Law. 2018;(4):110-121. (In Russ.)
- Kalenov, S. E., Nikitina, A. V. Insignificance of a judge's disciplinary misconduct: problems of legislative regulation and law enforcement. Rossiyskiy sud’ya = Russian Judge. 2023;(1):40-45. (In Russ.)
Supplementary files

