Re Review of Constitutionality of the Provisions of Article 31.7 and Article 31.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 557-577

Human rights — Liberty and security of person — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 5 — Stateless persons — Deprivation of liberty of a person against whom action being taken with a view to deportation or extradition — Judicial protection — Article 31.7 and Article 31.9 of Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation — Whether in compliance with Article 5 of Convention — Whether in compliance with Article 22 of Constitution of the Russian FederationNationality — Stateless persons — Conviction of offence — Liability to deportation — Absence of State willing to accept deportee — Continued detention — Human rights — The law of the Russian Federation

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-405 ◽  
Author(s):  

AbstractThis article examines the problems concerning the observance by the Russian Federation of European conventions, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture. In recent years, there has been a signifi cant breakthrough in the development of Russian legislation in light of human rights' principles and standards laid down by the Council of Europe. At the same time, the implementation of European standards in the law enforcement area has been carried out at a distinctly slow pace, particularly in relation to the criminal–executive system (where the first tentative steps towards the reform of penitentiary institutions have only been recently taken), the rights of migrants and refugees, the protection of the rights of armed forces personnel, and human rights in Chechnya. This article analyses the problems involved in the legal and judicial protection of human rights in Russia as well as issues concerning the restriction of citizens' rights in special circumstances (such as war or a state of emergency) and the protection of social rights. Lastly, the creation of a unifi ed legal space for human rights in the Russian Federation will also be discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.


Author(s):  
O. Vasylchenko

Ukrainian law guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This is in line with international and regional instruments (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Declaration of Human Rights) to which Ukraine is a party. Unfortunately, Ukraine is no exception, due to the conflict with the Russian Federation. The Revolution of Dignity of 2014 and the subsequent illegal activities of the neighbouring state (annexation of Crimea, occupation of the territories in the South-East of Ukraine) affected the legislative and regulatory framework of Ukraine regarding freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In order to counter aggression, the state has adopted a number of laws aimed at counteracting foreign interference in broadcasting and ensuring Ukraine’s information sovereignty. The implementation of these laws has been criticized for being seen by NGOs as imposing restrictions on freedom of expression and expression. However, censorship and selfcensorship create another serious restriction on freedom of speech and the press. The Law on Transparency of Mass Media Ownership, adopted in 2015, provides for the disclosure of information on the owners of final beneficiaries (controllers), and in their absence – on all owners and members of a broadcasting organization or service provider. In 2019, Ukraine adopted a law on strengthening the role of the Ukrainian language as the state language, which provides for language quotas for the media. According to the Law on Language, only 10% of total film adaptations can be in a language other than Ukrainian. Ukraine has adopted several laws in the field of information management to counter foreign influence and propaganda. According to the report of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for the period from January 1, 2017 to February 14, 2018, the State Committee banned 30 books published in the Russian Federation. Thus, for the first time faced with the need to wage an “invisible” war on the information front, Ukraine was forced to take seriously the regulation of the media and the market. By imposing a number of restrictions on a product that can shake sovereignty and increase the authority of the aggressor in the eyes of citizens, the legislator, guided by the needs of society, also contributes to the promotion of Ukrainian (for example, by introducing quotas).


Author(s):  
Butler William E

This chapter explores the role of Soviet and post-Soviet Russian courts in interpreting and applying international treaties. It is clear that Soviet courts dealt more frequently with treaties than the scanty published judicial practice of that period suggests. This early body of treaties may also have contributed to the emergence in the early 1960s of priority being accorded to Soviet treaties insofar as they contained rules providing otherwise than Soviet legislation. Whatever the volume of cases involving treaties that were considered by Soviet courts prior to 1991, the inclusion of Article 15(4) in the 1993 Russian Constitution transformed the situation. A further transformation occurred when the Russian Federation acceded to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and began to participate in the deliberations of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.


2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 396-426
Author(s):  
Mariya Riekkinen

A series of protests across Russia, triggered by procedural violations during the 2011 parliamentary elections and results of the 2012 presidential elections, culminated on 6 May 2012 with a demonstration at Bolotnaia Square in Moscow. That demonstration led to violent clashes between protesters and the police. The dispersal of this demonstration and the subsequent criminal and administrative trials conducted against some of the protesters, as well as the controversy regarding the severity of some of the penalties imposed by the courts, became known as the Bolotnoe Affair. The Bolotnoe Affair is analyzed from the perspective of implementing the right to freedom of assembly in Russia. The main goal is to conduct a contextual legal analysis clarifying whether the right to freedom of assembly is adequately implemented in the legal order of the Russian Federation, in order to illustrate whether the protesters in the Bolotnoe Affair were able to express their opinions with regard to the procedure and results of the elections. The leading court cases relevant to the participatory rights of the protesters as exemplified by the appellate decisions of the Moscow City Court will also be examined. In particular, twelve decisions of the Moscow City Court during the period 2012–2014 (full texts of which are reproduced in publicly available legal databases) are reviewed, as well as two recent judgments in European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) cases closely related to these earlier cases. Analyzing the Moscow City Court decisions vis-à-vis the judgments of the ECtHR, the author concludes that the Moscow City Court’s rulings did not conform with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (echr) regarding the right to freedom of assembly and the right to liberty.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 487-502

487Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution of judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Russian judgments — Whether European Court of Human Rights’ judgments providing grounds for reconsideration of decision in a civil case where opposing decision of Constitutional Court existing — Russian law — Article 392(4) of Russian Civil Procedure Code — The law of the Russian Federation


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains the practice and procedure of court bail. It examines the grounds upon which bail might be refused; the factors a court can have regard to when deciding whether bail should be granted; the procedure at a contested bail application; appeals against bail decisions; and bail and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR 1950).


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-165
Author(s):  
E. V. Mandzhieva

Achieving the aims of criminal proceedings is impossible without coercion, which significantly restricts human rights and freedoms, including constitutional ones, and, therefore, it is permissible only if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the criminal procedure legislation. The grounds, conditions and procedure for applying measures of restriction in criminal proceedings largely depend on the correct systematization of criminal procedure legislation, which may be the basis for a systematic interpretation of the text of the law. Combining other measures of procedural coercion in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have clear criteria, which is fraught with the erroneous use of procedural coercion against participants in criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to assess the directions of possible improvement of the legislation regarding the systematization of procedural coercion measures. Measures of procedural coercion should be structured and systematized in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on clear and uniform grounds, including coercive measures, which are not measures of restriction. Currently, there are no such grounds in relation to other measures of procedural coercion, united in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which impedes their reasonable application. The contents of Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be revised taking into account logical and legal ties. As a result of the research the author developed the ideas on logical connections as one of the main bases for the classification of the norms governing the use of procedural coercion, affecting its legality and validity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document