Russian Judicial Reform (2018–2024): Merger, Cassation Reform, and Digitalisation

The Russian judicial system underwent a series of significant reforms between 2014 and 2024, including the merger of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court, the creation of independent cassation and appellate courts, the digitalisation of court procedures, and reforms to the Constitutional Court. These reforms were presented as measures to improve the efficiency, consistency, and independence of the Russian judiciary, though their effect on judicial independence has been the subject of considerable debate.

Merger of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court (2014)

The merger of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court, effected by the Law of the Russian Federation on the Amendment to the Constitution of 5 February 2014, was the most significant structural reform of the Russian judicial system since the adoption of the 1993 Constitution. The merger abolished the Supreme Arbitration Court as a separate institution and transferred its functions to the Supreme Court, which became the single highest judicial body for civil, criminal, administrative, and economic matters. The stated objectives were to ensure uniform judicial practice, eliminate inconsistencies between the interpretations of the courts of general jurisdiction and the arbitration courts, and reduce forum shopping. Critics argued that the merger was motivated by the desire to eliminate the Supreme Arbitration Court, which had developed a reputation for greater independence and commercial sophistication than the courts of general jurisdiction. The merger was accomplished through a constitutional amendment, followed by the adoption of Federal Law No. 186-FZ of 28 June 2014 on the Procedure for the Formation of the Supreme Court, which provided for the integration of the judges and cases of the Supreme Arbitration Court into the Supreme Court. The Judicial Collegium for Economic Disputes was established within the Supreme Court to handle economic cases formerly within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Arbitration Court. The practical effect of the merger on judicial practice has been debated; the Supreme Court’s economic jurisprudence has drawn on the precedents of the former Supreme Arbitration Court while also reflecting the different institutional culture of the unified court.

Cassation and Appellate Courts Reform (2018–2019)

The 2018–2019 reform of the cassation and appellate courts, implemented through Federal Law No. 1-FKZ of 29 July 2018, created a system of independent cassation and appellate courts separate from the regional courts. Before the reform, cassation and appellate review were conducted by the same regional courts that heard cases at first instance, raising concerns about bias and lack of independence. The reform established five appellate courts of general jurisdiction and nine cassation courts of general jurisdiction, each with jurisdiction over several federal subjects. The new courts began operations on 1 October 2019. The appellate courts hear appeals against decisions of regional courts as courts of first instance, while the cassation courts review decisions that have entered into legal force. The reform was intended to increase the independence and impartiality of judicial review by ensuring that appeals and cassation cases are heard by courts outside the jurisdiction of the first-instance court. The reform also standardised the procedure for cassation review, introducing a two-stage cassation procedure (preliminary review by a single judge and final review by a panel of judges) and establishing uniform time limits for cassation appeals. The arbitration courts had already implemented a similar structure earlier, with independent arbitration appellate courts and arbitration cassation courts.

Digitalisation of Court Procedures

The digitalisation of court procedures has been a major focus of judicial reform. The Supreme Court launched the automated information system Pravosudiye (Justice) to support electronic document management, case management, and court administration in the courts of general jurisdiction. The arbitration courts had developed the Kad Arbitr system for electronic filing and case tracking. The GAS Pravosudiye system provides online access to court decisions, case schedules, and procedural information. The introduction of electronic document filing (elektronnoye podacha dokumentov) has been progressively expanded, with the procedural codes amended to recognise electronic documents as evidence and to allow electronic service of procedural documents. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digitalisation, with courts conducting hearings by videoconference and accepting electronic filings on an expanded scale. The Supreme Court has also developed a system for the publication of all court decisions (subject to the removal of personal data) in the public domain, contributing to the transparency of judicial practice. However, digitalisation has not fully addressed fundamental concerns about judicial independence and the quality of judicial decision-making.

Reforms to Judicial Appointments and Discipline

The 2020 constitutional amendments included provisions affecting judicial appointments and discipline. The amendments increased the minimum age for Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges from 40 to 45 (and to 30 for other federal court judges). The amendments also introduced a constitutional basis for the dismissal of judges, providing that the President may dismiss Constitutional Court and Supreme Court judges without the consent of the Federation Council in cases where the judge’s actions are incompatible with judicial status. The Supreme Court has also reformed the system of judicial evaluation, introducing periodic qualification examinations and performance evaluations for judges. The judicial qualification collegia have been given enhanced powers to investigate complaints against judges and to recommend disciplinary sanctions. Critics have argued that these reforms have increased executive influence over the judiciary, while the government has defended them as measures to improve judicial accountability and public trust.

Qualification Collegia and Judicial Discipline

The judicial qualification collegia (kvalifikatsionnyye kollegii sudey) are the bodies responsible for the selection, evaluation, and discipline of judges. The collegia operate at the level of federal subjects and at the Supreme Court level. They conduct competitions for judicial vacancies, evaluate the performance of judges, and consider disciplinary complaints. The disciplinary powers of the collegia include the power to issue warnings, to recommend a reduction in qualification class, and to recommend dismissal. The procedures of the qualification collegia have been reformed to increase transparency, including the publication of decisions on the Supreme Court website and the possibility of appealing collegium decisions to the Supreme Court. The disciplinary framework has been applied in cases involving procedural violations, delayed proceedings, and improper conduct, though critics argue that the collegia have been more responsive to executive pressure in politically sensitive cases than to qualitative deficiencies in judicial performance.

Judicial Independence Challenges

Despite the structural reforms, judicial independence in Russia remains constrained by several factors. The appointment and promotion system concentrates authority in the Chair of the Supreme Court and the Presidential Administration. The financial dependence of the judiciary on the executive budget limits de facto independence. The institutional culture inherited from the Soviet period, in which courts were instruments of state policy, continues to influence judicial behaviour. The phenomenon of telefonnoe pravo (telephone law) — the informal transmission of instructions from higher authorities to judges in politically significant cases — remains a concern. International observers, including the European Court of Human Rights, have documented systemic problems in the Russian judiciary, including the lack of independence of the courts from the executive, the conviction rate in criminal cases (approaching 99%), and the inadequate judicial protection of human rights. The 2018–2024 reforms did not address these fundamental challenges, and in some respects — particularly the increased presidential power over judicial appointments and dismissals — they may have exacerbated them.

Future Reform Directions

The judicial reform agenda continues to evolve. Proposals for further reform include the expansion of summary procedures, the introduction of specialised courts (including a separate administrative court system and a juvenile justice system), the further digitalisation of court procedures, the reform of the system of judicial evaluation, and the harmonisation of the procedural codes (the GPK RF and APK RF). The Supreme Court has proposed the unification of civil and arbitration procedure in a single procedural code, though this proposal has not been adopted. The effectiveness of further reforms will depend on the political will to address the underlying structural factors that constrain judicial independence and the government’s commitment to the rule of law.

Significance

The 2018–2024 judicial reforms represent the most significant restructuring of the Russian judicial system since the 1990s. The reforms addressed genuine institutional deficiencies, particularly the lack of independence in appellate and cassation review and the fragmentation of judicial practice. The digitalisation of court procedures has improved efficiency and transparency. However, the reforms left untouched the fundamental constraints on judicial independence — the concentration of appointment and promotion authority, the financial dependence of the judiciary, and the political influence on high-profile cases. The net effect of the reforms on the quality and independence of Russian justice remains a subject of ongoing debate.