7 International Treaties in Russian Judicial and Arbitral Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Butler William E
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals Enforceability of ECtHR Judgements in Russia: Alternatives of Interaction Between Jurisdictions

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01192
Author(s):  
Ivan Usenkov ◽  
Igor Morozov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation

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».

scholarly journals Russia`s Participation in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-56
Author(s):  
A. Y. Novoseltsev ◽  
K. V. Stepanyugin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation

INTRODUCTION. The article examines problematic issues of Russia’s participation in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the authors, the form of Russia’s participation in the Convention, associated with membership in the council of Europe, is unacceptable for its sovereignty. When ratifying the Convention, the degree of objectivity and impartiality of the ECHR in relation to the Russian Federation and the properties of the legal norms of the Convention were not taken into account.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The materials for the research are international agreements, resolutions of international organizations, decisions of the ECHR and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federa- tion, as well as doctrinal sources on the topic. The methodological basis of the article was formed by general scientific and special research methods. The article critically analyzes the arguments in favor of Russia’s participation in the European Convention and examines the reasons why the ECHR can hardly be called an objective court for a country that is not a member of the EU.RESEARCH RESULTS. The authors believe that the unenforceability of ECHR judgements is only part of the problem of enforcing binding decisions of international organizations. According to the authors, it is necessary to determine the fundamental foundations of Russia’s participation in international organizations that can make decisions legally binding for our country, and to limit their circle to the participants of the integration association with Russia, organizations of strategic partners, as well as organizations in which Russia can influence the adoption decisions. The principles of Russia’s participation in international organizations that make legally binding decisions should be included in the Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation”.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The subordination of Russia to the jurisdiction of an interstate human rights body must meet a number of conditions that the ECHR does not meet. Because of this, problems arise with the implementation by Russia of the decisions of the ECHR. The authors share the point of view that the ECHR is an effective mechanism for the protection of rights and freedoms, but only for a group of states – European integration participants bound by common interests, values, and coordinated foreign and domestic policies. Therefore Russia needs to return to the rules of cooperation in the field of human rights with European states, set out in the Helsinki Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

scholarly journals Recent Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: an Overview

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valeriy A. Musin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Countries ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation

In 2006 the Russian Federation was chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Our motto was: “Towards united Europe without dividing lines.” In order to make European countries closer to each other it is very important to insure unified interpretation and application of norms contained in international treaties. Such harmony between countries requires us to first consider the terms in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Executive Force of the ECtHR Judgments in a Legal System of the Russian Federation (on the Basis of the Practice of the Constitutional Court)

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Сергей Князев ◽  
Syergyey Knyazyev
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals Reforming the National System of Law as a Response to Pilot Rulings

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 116-119
Author(s):  
O.A. Golikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National System ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Executive System

The article deals with the problem of implementation by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the European Convention on human rights of 1950. the article Deals with systematic violations of article 3 of the Convention in the framework of the criminal Executive system. The article analyzes the judicial practice of the European court of human rights in the light of violations of this article. The practice of making pilot judgments by the Court is noted as a measure of improving the mechanism of legal protection, namely, improving the conditions of transportation of persons deprived of liberty.

Presumption of Innocence as a Principle of Administrative Offense Proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 30-34
Author(s):  
Artem R. Nobel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation

The presumption of innocence is defined as one of the key principles of proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses. Using the current legislation, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, judicial practice, the author reveals the essence of the presumption of innocence by highlighting the elements of this principle and characterizing their content.

The “Bolotnoe Affair” and the Implementation of the Right to Freedom of Assembly in the Russian Federation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 396-426
Author(s):  
Mariya Riekkinen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
European Court ◽  
Moscow City ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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.

The ‘Iukos Affair’. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Structural Nature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document