OF JUSTICE FOR RUSSIA: THEORETICAL ASPECTS AND REAL CONTENTS 

Salomatin Aleksey Yur'evich, Doctor of juridical sciences, doctor  of historical sciences, professor, head of sub-department of state and law theory and political science, Penza State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), valeriya_zinovev@mail.ru
Meshcheryakova Anna Fedorovna, Candidate of juridical sciences, associate professor, sub-department of justice, Penza  State University (40 Krasnaya street, Penza, Russia), fuga9@yandex.ru

347

10.21685/2072-3016-2016-4-4

Background. In the government mechanism of society organization the judiciary is considered as a social force capable of protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual against any abuse. In general terms the Constitution of the Russian Federation defines the principles of organization and functioning of the judiciary. However, this normative model is a huge distance away from reality. The society and state have to make considerable efforts to make the judiciary truly become an influential social force, because today there is an increasingly self-manifesting contradiction between the objective need of the society in the formation of an independent and strong judiciary and its real embodiment in social life. From this perspective, the formulation and study of questions of increasing the efficiency of justice and the search for the ideal model of justice have important practical significance. The purpose of the study is to investigate major social and legal problems of improvement of the efficiency of justice in the conditions of the judicial reform taking place in the country.
Materials and methods. The study was carried out on the basis of the general scientific dialectical method of cognition and its specific scientific methods: formallogical, specific sociological, statistical, comparative legal, historical, etc. This methodological framework has provided the study of the object – justice – in relation and interaction with the environment of functioning, in its integrity and with the requirements of comprehensiveness. To achieve the research objectives the authors also used statistical and other information.
Results. The authors analyzed some of the main directions of the judicial reform in contemporary Russia and designed elements that form the basis of the ideal model of justice, and the ways of its implementation. 
Conclusions. Based on the analysis of the domestic and foreign experience the researchers have developed the model of justice that best meets the criteria of the ideal model, as well as its main aspects and structure. Also the authors have shared their views on a number of issues related to improving the quality of justice in Russia.

justice, ideal model, efficiency of justice, juvenile justice, administrative justice, specialization of courts, court of jurors, unification of courts, judicial reform

1. Tikhomirov Yu. A. Teoriya kompetentsii [The competence thoery]. Moscow, 2001.
2. Starilov Yu. N. Ot administrativnoy yustitsii k administrativnomu sudoproizvodstvu [From administrative justice to administrative judicial proceedings]. Voronezh, 2003.
3. Berseneva A. Prisyazhnykh podelyat popolam [Jury to be divided]. Available at: http:// www.gazeta.ru/social/2015/12/03/7933277.shtml (accessed February 25, 2016).
4. Putin predlozhil rasshirit' primenenie sudov prisyazhnykh na rayonnyy uroven' [Putin suggested to expand jury trial to the district level]. Available at: http://www.rosbalt.ru/ federal/2016/02/16/1490409.html (accessed February 15, 2016).
5. Filina O. Ogonek [Fire]. 2013, 16 December.
6. Rabota sudov i sudey. Rossiyane rassuzhdayut o rabote sudov, sudey i primeryayut na sebya etu professiyu [Courts’ and judges’ work. Russians discuss courts’ and judges’ work and try the job themselves]. Available at: http://fom.ru/Bezopasnost-i-pravo/ 11033 (accessed February 25, 2016).
7. Burnham W., Trochev A. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 2007, vol. 55, no. 3 (summer 2007), pp. 381–452.
8. Zaikin S. Sravnitel'noe Konstitutsionnoe Obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2014, no. 3.
9. Blankenagel' A., Levin I. G. Sravnitel'noe Konstitutsionnoe Obozrenie [Comparative Constitutional Review]. 2014, no. 3.
10. Al'bers P. Svyaz' mezhdu effektivno rabotayushchimi sudami v Evrope: ot mer povysheniya kachestva k otlichnoy rabote sudov [Communication between European courts with efficient performance: from quality improving measures to excellent performance of courts]. Available at: //http://www.ebrd.com/ russian/downloads/research/law/lit11rk.pdf (data obrashcheniya: January 20, 2016).
11. Kleandrov M. I. Ekonomicheskoe pravosudie v Rossii: proshloe, nastoyashchee, budushchee [Economic justice in Russia: past, present, future]. Moscow: Volters Kluver, 2006, p. 576.