52 persons to Komi Republic recommended B to 2017 for a position of the judge, from them 23 — it is acting judges or the employees applying for increase, 21 persons — these are assistants to the judges, four persons — the staff of prosecutor's offices, as much — employees of investigative management and Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation.
of 10 people did not recommend for a position: to one person refused three times, to another — twice, there did not pass selection seven assistants to the judges, two investigators and one employee of prosecutor's offices.
From 52 people 12 did not pass selection at federal level: six were rejected by the president, statements of six withdrew courts.
the Reasons for which judges did not pass selection, became false information on property when the applicant did not specify that has a share in the apartment in other region. One of applicants did not specify a birth grant as the income. The commission doubted the real cost of the apartment of other applicant. Relatives who were repeatedly brought to administrative and criminal liability, also became an obstacle for career of the judge.
As were noted by Maklakov Vladimir, the attention to an environment of applicants grows from year to year, now it check "under a magnifying glass". There was such factor as the conflict of interests which just concerned the Syktyvkar investigator.
B 2017 of 28 judges to Komi Republic, including nine workers of the Supreme vessels, stopped the powers. As Maklakov Vladimir noted, there is an intensive change of personnel structure — the youth comes. And it influences and quality of work which fell a little.
last year inhabitants Komi Republic wrote of 288 complaints on judges while in their 2016 was 232.
112 returned to applicants and left without consideration, 119 complaints concerned violations by judges of the law. Reasonable recognized complaints on violation of terms of the direction of copies of documents, terms of acquaintance with protocol. One judge involved for red tape — he appointed examination, but did not find the expert, as a result expertize did not carry out. There was a fact of unreasonable refusal under the authority of an audio recording.
of All in 2017 of three judges brought to a disciplinary responsibility, having applied all types of punishment: remark, prevention and early termination of powers. Six people "did not hold on" before disciplinary punishment.
Photo 