The Interplay of Legal Certainty, Uniformity of Judicial Practice, and Protection of Legitimate Expectations

In Russian legal proceedings, the most important role of the interconnected principles of legal certainty, uniformity of judicial practice and protection of legitimate expectations is increasingly noted. However, at the present time, these principles are not enshrined in any norms, and their full content is not defined by the current legislation.

However, it is generally accepted in the legal community that the above principles follow from a systematic interpretation of the general provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The principle of legal certainty

The criterion of legal certainty as a constitutional requirement for legislators was articulated in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated April 25, 1995, No. 3-P "On the case of the constitutionality of parts one and two of Article 54 of the RSFSR Housing Code following the complaint of citizen Sitalova L.N." The Constitutional Court indicated that the general legal criterion of certainty, clarity, and unambiguity of a legal norm follows from the constitutional principle of equality of all before the law and the court (Part 1 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), since such equality can be ensured only under the condition of a uniform understanding and interpretation of the norm by all law enforcement agencies. The uncertainty of the content of a legal norm, on the contrary, allows for unlimited discretion in the process of law enforcement and inevitably leads to arbitrariness, and therefore to a violation of the principles of equality, as well as the rule of law (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 15.07.1999 No. 11-P "On the case of verifying the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Law of the RSFSR "On the State Tax Service of the RSFSR" and the Laws of the Russian Federation "On the Fundamentals of the Tax System in the Russian Federation" and "On the Federal Tax Police Bodies").

Furthermore, in its resolutions dated January 14, 2016, No. 1-P and December 28, 2022, No. 59-P, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indicated that the principle of legal certainty guarantees citizens that decisions are made by state-authorized bodies based on strict compliance with legislative requirements, as well as a careful and responsible assessment of the factual circumstances with which the law associates the emergence, change, and termination of rights.

The principle of legal certainty is elucidated by the Constitutional Court in the following requirements imposed on legislative and law enforcement activities: stability of legal regulation; clarity, unambiguity, and consistency of legal norms and law enforcement decisions; uniform application of the law, including the unity of judicial practice; and stability of law enforcement practice (Methodological Aspects of Constitutional Control, approved by the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on October 19, 2021).

From the above, it follows that the principle of legal certainty is closely systemically linked to the principle of uniformity of judicial practice.

The principle of uniformity of judicial practice

In paragraph 2.1. of the Decision of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union dated 15.02.2021 No. CE-1-2/9-20-AP "On the cancellation of the Decision of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union dated 06.11.2020 No. CE-1-2/3-20-KS and recognition of the Decision of the EEC Board dated 04.06.2019 No. 84 "On the classification of artificial corundum in accordance with the unified Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of the Eurasian Economic Union" as consistent with the Treaty on the EAEU dated 29.05.2014 and international treaties within the EAEU" it was indicated that established judicial practice is understood as a consistent and uniform approach of the same composition of the judicial body to resolving disputes with a similar subject matter and based on coinciding legal norms.

However, decisions of law enforcement agencies in relation to the same factual circumstances must be binding not only on courts, but also on all other government agencies authorized to determine the legal status of property and property rights of participants in civil transactions.

This follows from the fact that the provisions of Part 1 of Article 16 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establish that judicial acts of an arbitration court that have entered into legal force are binding on state authorities, local government bodies, other bodies, organizations, officials and citizens and are subject to execution throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of this norm, judicial acts of the arbitration court that have entered into legal force have the property of being generally binding throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. A judicial act that has entered into legal force, containing conclusions on the merits of the case, resolves the dispute and gives legal certainty to the relations of the participants in this dispute.

At the same time, despite the fact that in the continental legal system, precedent is not a source of law, Russian courts, nevertheless, referring to the conclusions from previously adopted judicial acts, indicate that judicial practice is presented not as a source of law, but as confirmation of the compliance of the legal position with previously formulated interpretations, which satisfies the principles of unity of legality, uniformity of judicial practice (Resolution of the Fourth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 16.05.2018 in case No. A19-24831/2017, Resolution of the Twentieth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 04.04.2017 in case No. A68-6545/2016 (upheld unchanged by the Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated 24.07.2017 in the same case)).

The principles of legal certainty and uniformity of judicial practice are fundamental principles of Russian law and are aimed at preventing contradictions in law enforcement practice, since relations that are homogeneous in their legal nature must be regulated in the same way.

The certainty of legal norms allows participants in civil transactions to adjust their behavior to them - both prohibited and permitted, predicting the expected decision of a government agency, which indicates the presence of another principle - the principle of protecting legitimate expectations.

The principle of protection of legitimate expectations

The content of the principle of legitimate expectations is identical behavior of a state body in relation to economic entities in relation to similar factual circumstances.

The above contributes to the predictability of the behavior of the power participant in legal relations, giving the opportunity to their powerless participants to shape their behavior, helping to maintain trust in the law and in the actions of the state. In this regard, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation notes that the courts need to verify whether the body, when making the contested decision, has fulfilled the obligation to maintain the trust of citizens and their associations in the law and in the actions of the state (clause 17 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.06.2022 No. 21 "On Certain Issues of the Application by Courts of the Provisions of Chapter 22 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation and Chapter 24 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation").

Consequently, it can be concluded that law enforcement agencies of state power are bound by their conclusions made in relation to the same circumstances of the case, since otherwise an arbitrary change in the position of a state agency would contradict the named principles, which establish guarantees of stability and predictability of the behavior of agencies making decisions regarding the rights and legitimate interests of participants in civil transactions.

A similar legal position is presented in the decisions of the Presidium of the Intellectual Property Court dated 19.10.2023 in case No. SIP-351/2023, dated 14.07.2022 in case No. SIP-1025/2021, dated 24.05.2021 in case No. SIP-422/2020, dated 25.12.2020 in case No. SIP-116/2020 and many others.

However, given that the decision of the law enforcement agency is made based on the specific circumstances of the case, it may, when examining the case, verify the reasonableness and fairness of the "legitimate expectations" formed in judicial practice. When a state agency considers it necessary to come to a conclusion different from that presented in the established law enforcement practice, it must be based on proper justification.

Thus, the Constitutional Court has repeatedly noted that any differentiation leading to differences in the rights of citizens in a particular area of legal regulation must meet the requirements of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which such differences are permissible if they are objectively justified, substantiated and pursue constitutionally significant goals, and proportionate legal means are used to achieve these goals (Resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 24.05.2001 No. 8-P, of 3.06.2004 No. 11-P, of 15.06.2006 No. 6-P, of 5.04.2007 No. 5-P, of 25.03.2008 No. 6-P, of 26.02.2010 No. 4-P, of 19.03.2010 No. 7-P, Definition Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 12.05.2011 No. 737-O-O).

It can be seen that the principles considered in this article are interconnected, where legal certainty is achieved through a uniform interpretation of legal provisions, which leads to the predictability of the outcome of civil legal relations and the protection of the legitimate expectations of their participants.

The stated principles are intended to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power and to promote the formation of trust in the law and the actions of the state among non-power entities, which could otherwise lead to the undermining of state protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in the Russian Federation, guaranteed by Part 1 of Article 45 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.