Judicial independence is an essential feature of the system. It is reflected in many normative acts, the main of which is the Constitution. What does the principle of independence of judges mean? Learn more about this later. 
Definition
The independence of judges is, in fact, following only the norms of the Constitution and the Federal Law. In carrying out their activities, judges are not accountable to anyone. The independence of judges should be understood as the exclusion of any influence on them by other persons and organizations during the consideration of specific cases.
purpose
The principle of independence of judges and their subordination only to the law presupposes the formation of such conditions for them to fulfill their functions under which they would be able to make their decisions in accordance with the Constitution and federal legislation (Federal Law), guided by internal convictions. During the trial, their opinion is not connected with the point of view of the participants in the process. The independence of judges is ensured by protection from any influence, pressure from the outside. Under these conditions, we can talk about the real independence of the entire branch of government in which these officials are involved.
A responsibility
In the event that an act of a state agency or other authority is found to be incompatible with the law, the court shall make a decision based on the rule of law. Failure to comply with this requirement is a serious procedural violation. It entails a reversal of the decision. The constitutional principle of the independence of judges and their subordination only to the law imposes an obligation on them to suppress any interference in the resolution of cases. Along with this, lay assessors, elected for the first time, need to explain the main tasks, goals and concepts, the specifics of the duties, requirements. Otherwise, it is difficult to ensure the consideration of cases in accordance with the rule of law. 
Modern realities
The court is included in the number of such instances whose decisions, in one way or another, are in the sphere of functioning of other state bodies, officials at various levels, citizens who are interested to some extent in the outcome of the consideration of specific cases. In this regard, the diversity of ways and methods of influencing organizations authorized to hear proceedings, which has been developed over many years, is also noted. Among the methods of exposure, bribery attempts and threats of physical violence can be noted. And the farther, the more sophisticated they become.
Guarantees for the independence of judges
Their development and implementation in practice is given special attention. Work in this direction has been carried out for a long time. The shift in this matter is related to the adoption of the Law regulating the status of judges. However, the formation of conditions that exclude the threat of external impact, the task is not solved completely. In addition, there is a possibility of influence on some judges by others or the presiding judge. That is why the rules are designed to solve this two-pronged problem. In particular, the procedural code requires that decisions be made in a special room. During the discussion, no stranger is allowed into it, and there may be judges participating in the consideration of a particular case. To exclude influence on the decision of the presiding judge, he shall vote last. Both the jury and lay judges, as well as professional judges, have the rule of secrecy of the meeting.This means that officials discussing and making a decision are not allowed to divulge the opinions expressed during the adoption of the decision. The fulfillment of this requirement is ensured by the fact that in case of violation of the confidentiality of the meeting, the issued act will be canceled. 
Requirements
The principle of independence of judges does not act as any slogan or appeal. This is a normative prescription by which the tasks set are realized. This provision is reinforced by guarantees for the independence of judges, expressed, inter alia, in the establishment of certain status requirements. In particular, they include:
- oath;
- requirements for candidates and judges, appointment procedure;
- right to resign;
- the procedure for administering justice in accordance with the procedure established by law;
- prohibition of interference with activity from any side;
- immunity;
- established procedure for the termination or suspension of authority;
- system of organs of the community of judges;
- provision of protection to officials, relatives, safety of property on the basis of a relevant application;
- the right to carry and store service weapons;
- provision of social and material support at the expense of the state in accordance with high status.
The Constitution enshrines the separation of powers. The principle of independence of judges is also based on it. In accordance with the provision, this branch of government acts independently, separately from others.
Candidate Requirements
Through their implementation, the principle of independence of judges is also implemented. Applicants must:
- be citizens of the Russian Federation;
- reach 25 years;
- have a higher education (legal);
- not commit acts that discredit them;
- have at least five years of experience in the legal field;
- pass a qualification exam and get a recommendation from a judicial board.
Age restrictions
The principle of independence of judges is also implemented in certain requirements for the age of an official. A citizen who has reached the age of 30 may work in a higher authority, in the Armed Forces or the Supreme Arbitration Court - 35. In the latter case, the length of service in the legal sphere is not less than 10 years. A citizen can work in the Constitutional Court from the age of forty. Moreover, his experience should be at least 15 years. The age limit for staying as a judge is 70 years. For the authorized (constitutional) authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, their own upper limit may be established. 
Term of office
In accordance with the general rule, the period of tenure for a judge has no restrictions. However, this provision provides for two exceptions. So, the Justice of the Peace is elected for 5 years by the population of the district to which his jurisdiction extends. Officials of city (district), district (garrison, naval) military authorities are appointed for three years. At the end of this period, they can be appointed for an unlimited period.
The rights
In case of violation of the principles of independence and inviolability, in case of threat of physical reprisal against a judge or members of his family, encroachment on property, the chairpersons of arbitration instances and general jurisdiction should take appropriate measures. They are provided for in Federal Law No. 45. According to its provisions, the state guarantees the protection of judges. The chairmen are obliged to inform the relevant authorities, as well as the Supreme Armed Forces, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation about the indicated circumstances.
Supervisory activity
The principle of independence of judges, as mentioned above, provides for the exclusion of any interference. However, this requirement does not apply to inspections of government agencies that do not affect the substance of the decisions taken. So, for example, tax authorities can verify the correctness of the calculation of state duties and the completeness of the receipt of funds in the budget. This is necessary to prevent all kinds of errors. 
Finally
The principle of independence of judges, enshrined in the Constitution, serves to implement the rule of law, impartial and objective execution of the tasks of justice. Nevertheless, the whole system as a whole has significant disadvantages. In particular, this concerns the status of judges. The officials are not accountable to anyone, which means that all responsibility for decisions taken lies with their conscience. Some judges are more guided by their own convictions than by the letter of the law. This, in turn, creates the prerequisites for a decrease in the authority of the authorities and indicates a lack of objectivity in decision-making. This problem was often raised at various levels, including in the Federal Assembly. However, in practice, often the situation remains just that.
