A friendly court, as leading figures in the former Russian government would say, are remnants of the past. The current legislation of the Russian Federation does not have such a concept, there are no legal acts to regulate such a structure. There are no bans or restrictions.
A friendly court can be created at any enterprise, included in the charter or approved by local order. Only his decisions cannot be taken at the legislative level, have legal force. Censure made in this way is but a public condemnation. Bailiffs work with decisions of state courts.
The structure of social phenomena
The friendly court in the past (1961-1990) belonged to an effective tool for influencing the conscience of petty violators. They drove a special ideology into their heads, brought up from an early age in such a way that the opinion of society, the assessment of the Communist Party influenced consciousness more than condemnation among friends and relatives.
The Compassionate Court in the USSR, by its composition, content and position, belonged to an elected public body. With its help, the executive branch warned offenses, misconduct. It was also a preventive function and an educational tool for convincing the inadmissibility of harming anyone.
The actions of the censure at the meeting were limited to:
- rural settlement;
- Organization
- workshops;
- collective farm.
Good intentions
The friendly court consisted of members who were usually chosen by the citizens themselves in the collective where they worked. The process depended on where the structure was created. For example, in the house management members were elected among the residents. Such an education had its ideological orientation as an additional branch to the state court. The authorities tried to correct human nature in the team - whether it be work or place of residence. The idea of introducing friendly courts in Russia belongs to V.I. Lenin.
He signed the decree in 1919. As an educated man, he may have gained experience from historical facts, one of which was still present in the Napoleonic army. The soldiers elected their judges, they heard the violators and issued a verdict. The officers did not enter and did not intervene, and the decisions were sometimes fatal.
Soviet legislative statements
The friendly court of 1965 is mentioned in the statements of the Armed Forces of the RSFSR No. 4 as amendments and additions to the Decree of the Presidium, which approved the organization of the solution of the tasks assigned to this department. The structure was intended to achieve the goal:
- To educate a citizen with a communist attitude to socialist property, with a sense of collectivism through public convictions.
- To warn offenses harmful to society.
- Create intolerance for antisocial activities.
- Ensure trust in the team to express will and responsibility before education.
Organization Order
A decree of the Presidium in 1963 made a proposal on the procedure and methods of forming friendly courts. They are created by workers, employees, students on the basis of decisions of general meetings:
- enterprises;
- institutions;
- organizations;
- educational institutions.
The procedure for establishing the structure on collective farms, state farms and large-scale industries was indicated. In 1985, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet made amendments to the document, but the direction of the provision on comradely courts remained the same - to serve faithfully in the Communist Party. Apparently, the acts were supposed to be updated and corrected under the influence of time, but it is not necessary to change something in ideology.
Who was part of?
Each citizen could become a member of a public court, all the more so since their activities were carried out on a voluntary basis, which meant that salaries were not laid for work, and cases and court hearings were held outside working hours. The candidates were nominated by public organizations:
- party;
- trade union;
- Komsomol.
Elected members must be:
- morally clean and responsible;
- highly disciplined;
- organized;
- irreconcilable to misconduct.
The owners of these qualities will be able to solve the task with dignity. For some reason, the provision presented and published by a senior official of the Soviet period does not say anything about a lawyer in a friendly court. There is a reservation in article 19 that individuals may appeal against any decision made within 10 days.
The complaint will be accepted by the union or local council. There are no denials or any restrictions for the appearance of the defender of the accused person in the meeting. Documents hold back the existence of persons protecting the interests of any of the parties. It is said that cases are considered in the composition of at least 3 people. When considering a conflict at a meeting, the following persons shall be heard:
- attracted;
- victims;
- defendants in the dispute;
- witnesses.
Everyone present can ask the participants a question and speak on the merits.
What cases were considered?
You can trace the history of the development and formation of comradely courts in the Russian Federation as the legal successor of the Soviet Union. Now they have been replaced by other authorities, whose authority is somewhat different from public censure. The appearance of this status significantly unloaded the work of the courts to consider:
- petty offenses;
- squabble inside the team;
- theft in the amount of 50 rubles.
The non-governmental public body was engaged in the consideration of:
- violations of labor discipline at work - absenteeism, lateness, alcohol excesses;
- non-compliance with industrial safety in any form;
- loss, damage to state property at enterprises;
- misuse of transport, equipment for own needs;
- drinking alcohol at work or in crowded places - stadium, park, public transport;
- purchases of strong home-made drinks.
In 1985, a list of issues approved by the Government that could be condemned by society was issued.
In what order was the investigation conducted?
The meeting was held in the assembly halls at the workplace of the violator; the club could also provide its premises. We filed a complaint with the court:
- workers, employees, collective farmers by decision of the meeting of the collective;
- representatives of the local executive committee;
- heads of enterprises, organizations reported violations;
- team members or residents of the area.
The public authority worked, just like a regular court:
- collecting materials;
- examined testimony;
- accepted confirmations and evidence of facts;
- acquainted with the papers of the participants in the process.
Meetings where controversial issues were discussed were held in public, participants were informed about the time in advance.
Rights and obligations
Rules and requirements for participants were established similar to the usual procedural order. The chairman and members of such a body could not participate in the proceedings if:
- figured themselves in a dispute or one of the relatives;
- Witnessed the incident;
- were interested in business.
The challenge could be made as any of the defendants, and the members of the court themselves. A similar application was considered by the entire judicial structure and made its determination.
