To link to this article, copy this persistent link:
(Jan 08, 2013) On December 13, 2012, the Supreme Court of the
The ruling defines how to establish access to a trial for people who are not parties to the case and are representatives of public organizations or the mass media. The ruling requires courts to take all necessary measures to accommodate interested people and provides for the creation of overflow rooms in the courts if there are too many people wanting to attend a trial. Such rooms must have equipment for live broadcasts from the courtrooms. Additionally, the ruling obligates the courts to establish access to court hearings for people with disabilities. (
The ruling states that because all court trials must be open, special accreditation of journalists is not required. According to the Supreme Court, the "presence of a journalist in a courtroom is a legitimate way to seek and obtain information," and people attending an open trial need not inform the judge or request his/her approval if they want to make a record of the proceedings, including by means of audio recordings. (
Photo and video cameras, however, can be used in the courtroom only with the judge's permission, to be given after consultation with all the parties involved. If such recording does not violate the legal rights of the parties, the use of cameras in the courtroom cannot be prohibited simply because of an "unreasonable unwillingness" on the part of one of the parties. (Ruling No. 35, supra.)
In order to avoid unnecessary trial secrecy and to prevent judges from conducting hearings behind closed doors, the ruling confirms that closed hearings can be held only in cases in which state secrets or a child adoption are discussed or when a party requests secrecy because of a fear that the divulgence of private information during the trial might violate privacy rights. The ruling specifically states that discussion of a party's private affairs is not a reason for removing the public from the courtroom and that violation of open trial rules can be a substantial enough reason for cancellation of a judgment by a higher court. (
Because the ruling allows judges to give interviews and participate in press conferences without violating the principle of judicial independence, the Congress of Judges, the Russian professional organization of judges, amended the professional Code of Ethics, allowing judges to comment on cases they recently resolved. (Elena Shmaraeva, Be Careful, Courts Are Open [in Russian], GAZETA.RU (Dec. 25, 2012).)
While they affirmed the usefulness of the ruling, which legitimizes the access of mass media to courtrooms, leading Russian court reporters expressed their hope that because of the increased openness of trials, judges will follow existing procedural laws more strictly. (
- Author: Peter Roudik More by this author
- Topic: Freedom of the press More on this topic
- Jurisdiction: Russian Federation More about this jurisdiction
Search Legal News
Find legal news by topic, country, keyword, date, or author.
Global Legal Monitor RSS
Get the Global Legal Monitor delivered to your inbox. Sign up for RSS service.
The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It is updated frequently and draws on information from the Global Legal Information Network, official national legal publications, and reliable press sources. You can find previous news by searching the GLM.
Last updated: 01/08/2013