328 kollegiia, but in Sweden court of appeals” (“lustits-kollegiia a v Shvetsii gofgerikht”).®^ M. M. Bogoslovskii argued that, in addition to the position of the iustits-kollegiia in the Russian judicial hierarchy, there was another basic difference between it and the Swedish judicial hierarchy. He wrote that: already from the first days of its existence, (the court system) was complicated by yet another institution that was unknown in Sweden and that naturally and absolutely had to be integrated into it, assuming a position superior to the iustits-kollegiia. That was the Ruling Senate. We have seen, however, that, contrary to Bogoslovskii’s statement, a section of the Sv/edish State Council, the justitierevisionen, served as a permanent court of revision and held regular sessions. Cases were prepared and presented by a secretary for revisions, and those cases which were taken up for review could thus be subjected to a new' investigation. Adjudication in the 'justitierevisionen could be authorized in response to an appeal of a decision of a court of appeals made within the stipulated period or time, in which case this procedure constituted an ordinary course of legal action. But revision could also be used as an extraordinary legal instrument; a new^ trial, for example, could be granted if a party found some document which would have been so important for the case that it might have altered the decision of the court, had it been available in time for the original trial. Thus, in light of what has been said, the Swedish 'justitierevisionen was a permanent judicial institution and not merely a sporadic phenomenon. On January 8, 1719, it was decreed that courts of appeals {gofgerikhty) were to be established at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan’, Kursk, laroslavl’, Voronezh, Nizhnii Novgorod, Smolensk, and Tobolsk.In addition, a court of appeals was established at Eniseisk, and that at Riga was to be preserved.The courts of appeals were organized collegially on the model of the iustits-kollegiia,^^^ but this reformof the Russian judicial 99 100 *** TsGADA, f. 1451 dclo 18 1. 422. In connection with the drawing up of the Russian table of ranks, Menshikov and the krigs-kollegiia argued that “it was not suitable to have many courts of appeals, since in Sweden there is only one such court in the capital.” Instead, it was suggested that Russia should have one court of appeals in St. Petersburg, and one in Moscow “for the age of the place.” See S. M. Troitskii, “O sozdanii tabeli o rangakh,” Istoriia SSSR, no. 1 (1974), 107. ** Bogoslovskii (1902), 173—174. JÄGERSKIÖLD (1964), 309—314. TsGADA, f. 1451 delo 11 I. 5; the original was written by Peter himself. Cf. Heinrich Pick’s proposal for courts of appeals above, p. 323. Bogoslovskii (1902), 186. Ibid., 187. Justice was administered in the towns by special city courts, the magistracies, which were subordinate to the Glavnyi magistrat at St. Petersburg. Thus, 100 101
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=