scholarly journals The Relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: A Reply to Jeffrey Kahn

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 961-969
Author(s):  
A Blankenagel
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.


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 .


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


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-184
Author(s):  
A. S. Koshel

The subject. The article examines the refraction of the doctrine of legal procedure in relation to the activities of parliament.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that parliamentary procedure is the kind of legal procedureThe methodology. The author uses formal legal interpretation of Russian legislative acts and decisions of Russian Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights as well as such general scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, systemic approachThe main results, scope of application. The author draws attention to the fact that at the present stage of the development of the theory of law, it can be stated that procedural social relations have developed in the parliamentary bureaucracy, which are not only regulated, but must also be regulated by procedural norms, which confirms the conclusions of the authors of a "broad" approach to the theory of legal process. However, there will be a window of opportunity for the supporters of the "narrow" approach in the parliamentary process. In accordance with the conclusions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which have prerequisites even in the works of Montesquieu, the parliament, as a body with jurisdictional powers, must comply with the appropriate procedure in their implementation. Hence, the author deduces the tasks of further improving both the doctrine of parliamentary procedure and the need for clear and competent regulation of legal procedures in parliament, the ultimate goal of which is to observe and implement the rights, freedoms and constitutional guarantees of participants in the parliamentary process.Conclusions. The procedures governing the work of the Parliament and its organs are legal procedures in the broad sense of the term. This does not negate the understanding that the legal procedures of the parliament, corresponding to its quasi-judicial powers, has the nature of the jurisdictional process. This conclusion is consistently confirmed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document