Re Review of Constitutionality of Article 11 and Article 392(4) Items 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01192
Author(s):  
Ivan Usenkov ◽  
Igor Morozov

Issues of enforceability of the European Court of Human Rights judgements in Russia are considered in the article. The authors infer the priority of the model, in which judgements can be unimplemented if they are contrary to the constitutional law of the country in accordance with comparative legal analysis. However, the state is ought to make everything possible in order to enforce the decision, even interpret the Constitution, if possible. The authors conclude that issues of correlation of sovereignty and regional consensus, subsidiarity principles and supranationality, interpretation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms have not obtained a response. The European Court of Human Rights should be more thorough with the aspects of the national legal systems, but rejection of the execution of its judgements is unacceptable. Relevant provisions are to be excluded from the FCL from 21.07.1994 N 1-FCL «The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation».


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 153-159
Author(s):  
A. R. Nobel

The paper provides definitions of the principles and system of principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses. Based on the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the practice of their application, the author substantiates the position that the principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are, to varying degrees, enshrined in regulatory legal acts constituting legislation on administrative offenses, both directly and indirectly. The system of procedural principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses is revealed. The author includes the following principles in this system: open consideration; state language; direct examination of evidence; freedom to evaluate evidence; compulsory consideration of applications; freedom to appeal against procedural decisions; competition and equality of the parties; fair consideration of the case; ensuring the right to defense. The content of these principles having a pronounced procedural nature is formed through a systemic interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The author concludes that, despite the existence of various ways of consolidating the procedural principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, the greatest efficiency of their perception and application will be achieved only when the principles are reflected in a special chapter of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 933-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kahn

Abstract Russia eagerly ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1998. Twenty years later, the chair of its Constitutional Court now expresses resentment at the subordination of Russian sovereignty. A new law expands his Court’s jurisdiction to deny effect to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, an unprecedented power that has already been used twice. This article analyses this law and its application in its first two years. Both the claim of ‘subordination’ and the Russian response to it, in law and practice, rest on weak legal ground. But Russia’s action also raises deeper theoretical and practical questions for the ECHR as a ‘living instrument’ subject to the ‘evolutive’ interpretations of the Strasbourg Court. If other member states mimic Russia’s response to these issues, a European human rights system premised on the final interpretive authority of an international court could come to its end.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Сергей Князев ◽  
Syergyey Knyazyev

The article deals with the complex of issues concerned with the acknowledgement of the executive force of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and ensuring their implementation in the Russian Federation. According to the author, the main difficulties of the implementation of the Convention´s provisions for Russia are not connected with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms per se, but the interpretation of its norms in the judgments of the ECtHR. The author emphasized that the ECtHR usually avoids the direct conflicts with the Russian constitutional order in a process of decision-making and their execution does not cause any problems in a majority of cases. However, the active using of such tools as evolutive interpretation, European consensus, limits of national discretion, etc. by the ECtHR leads to the fact that its judgments are in contradiction with the Russian Constitution or legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Such ECtHR judgments are the subject matter of analysis of present article in a view of the assessing their executive force. On a basis of the systematic analysis of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the author comes to the conclusion about the necessity of surveying of all available to the Russian authorities’ funds to maintain a cohesive European (Convention) and national (constitutional) legal orders. Derogation from the legal obligation of the ECtHR judgments can be permissible in exceptional cases only and may be dictated only by the aims of protection of the state sovereignty and the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.


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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Болотин ◽  
Vladimir Bolotin ◽  
Паньков ◽  
Sergey Pankov

In the article the need of reasonable restriction of human rights and freedoms in modern conditions of increase of various threats for the constitutional system of Russia is shown; the results of modern research in this area, as well as the position of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of Russia, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation are revealed. Defined The system of restrictions, acting legal instrument for the protection of the constitutional order, the conditions and criteria for the limitation of rights and freedoms .


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document