Equal to the Constitution: the Sources of Law of Highest Legal Force in the Russian Federation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Михаил Пресняков ◽  
Mikhail Pryesnyakov

In article the question of validity of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and some other sources of the right which can also possess the highest validity is considered. In particular the author comes to a conclusion that legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation possess the highest validity and in total with the constitutional provisions represent the actual Constitution. On the other hand, both laws on amendments to the Constitution, and the universally recognized norms of international law on the validity stand below constitutional precepts of law. Acts of the Constitutional Assembly of the Russian Federation may in future be qualified as having the highest judicial effect. Such acts may abolish or change any provision of the present Constitution. At the same time the universally recognized norms of international law and the laws of the Russian Federation regulating amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation as independent juridical acts and sources of constitutional law are inferior as compared with the constitutional legal norms.

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
S. V. Musarskiy

One of the most difficult issues of civil law is the determination of the criteria for abuse of rights prohibited by Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Among numerous points of view on this issue, the following has become very widespread in judicial practice: an abuse of the right can be established based on the negative consequences that have occurred for third parties as a result of the exercise of the right. Since these consequences are evident, then the exercise of the right constituted an abuse. Substantial support for this approach is provided by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation opining that the rule of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is aimed at implementing the principle enshrined in Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Having studied the origins of this point of view and its legal foundations, the author noted a number of inherent shortcomings. In particular, this point of view does not distinguish between inflicting unacceptable harm and admissible actions causing harm to another person; it does not take into account the competition of legal norms; it does not take into account that causing harm prohibited by law is an offense and, therefore, it is not an act of exercising subjective rights. These and other shortcomings of the concept of causing harm, noted by the author of the paper, lead to the conclusion that the feature of “causing harm” in itself is insufficient to qualify the act as an act of abuse of the right and the application of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In addition to the indicated feature, which is a prerequisite for the application of Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the court must establish another (key) factor, namely: the fact that, in its opinion, allows to distinguish between legal abuse and other lawful and unlawful phenomena.


Author(s):  
Ol'ga Guzeeva

In the matter of concretizing the constitutional basis of criminal law regulation, the task of building a system of criminal punishments and the rules for their appointment that is adequate to the constitutional basis is of great importance. In its decisions, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation formulated a number of legal positions, which, on the one hand, confirm the already existing criminal law decisions, and on the other hand, act as a fundamental guidance for all subsequent decisions, serve as a criterion for checking the constitutionality of criminal law regulations. Based on the generalization and analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the article presents the main requirements, the observance of which is intended to ensure the commensuration and proportionality of criminal punishment as a means of limiting the rights of a person who has committed a crime. Among these requirements, priority is given to: the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading forms of punishment; limiting the punitive treatment on the person who committed the crime, exclusively within the framework of criminal responsibility; differentiation of criminal punishment and the rules for its appointment while observing the principle of legal equality; commensuration and proportionality of the punishment established by law and imposed by the court on the grounds for the application of measures of criminal responsibility; potential and real ability of punishment to ensure the achievement of the goals of criminal law impact.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 211-218
Author(s):  
Полина Виноградова ◽  
Polina Vinogradova

In modern conditions, changing approaches to the implementation of international law there is both the need and opportunity. The article considers some issues of the relation of national and international law. The legal position about resolution of conflicts of constitutional and conventional interpretations are based on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the so-called request for the applicability of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Since 2014 there is a new version of Article 101 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, which establishes opportunity to apply to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the ECHR. This provision contains an important mechanism for harmonization the constitutional and conventional interpretation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
IGOR N. BARTSITS ◽  

The article is devoted to revealing the specifics of the implementation of such areas of constitutional law as the constitutionalization of international law and the internationalization of constitutional law by the example of additions to Article 79 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the practices of the Italian Constitutional Court, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, etc. The author examined in sufficient detail the procedures for extending the effect of international law and international treaties of Russia to the national legal system, analyzed the concept of counter-limits in European and national judicial practice, presented the basic principles of interaction between European and national courts (the principle of subsidiarity, the principle of proportionality, the principle of ‘sincere cooperation’, method of ‘dialogue of judges’). There is a need for an updated understanding of the term ‘constitutional sovereignty of the state’, which is based on domestic norms on fundamental rights and norms on the foundations of the constitutional system, which presupposes the inadmissibility of any foreign or international influence that violates the requirement of priority of the norms and principles of the national Constitution in the national legal system. The article substantiates the expediency of using the doctrine of counter-limits in the Russian Federation as an instrument of constitutional self-defense, ensuring constitutional sovereignty and preserving constitutional identity.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Chiara Pievatolo

Is it right to wage war to export democracy, or -- as Kant would have said -- to interfere forcibly in the constitution and in the government of another state with the goal of transforming it into a republic? The answer of Kant is contained in the fifth preliminary article of the Perpetual Peace and it leans towards non-interventionism: a bad constitution can never justify a war, because it may be the root only of a scandalum acceptum. To understand the meaning of scandalum acceptum we have to become aware that it is a term originating from moral theology, which we should translate into the language of international law. Most of Kant's contemporaries still understood the scandal as the sin of advertising a sinful behavior. A scandalum is only acceptum, however, if the act that inspired others to sin has been done without the intention to give them a bad example. A flawed constitution can only be the occasion of a scandalum acceptum because its legal power does not spread its influence beyond the border of its state. If a nation chooses to imitate the allegedly wrong constitution of another state, its choice only depends on its sovereignty, because it is a matter of internal constitutional law. On the other hand, waging war against another country because of its allegedly flawed constitution is a worse kind of scandal, the scandalum datum, because it involves an international law principle of limited sovereignty according to which every state has the right to assault another state because of its constitution.


2018 ◽  
pp. 41-43
Author(s):  
E.V. Ezhova

The article deals with the basic guarantees of protection of attorney-client confidentiality in criminal proceedings. A comparative analysis of the legislative norms of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus regulating the legal regime of attorney-client confidentiality is carried out. The article presents the legal positions of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue under consideration, which contributed to the amendments to the criminal procedure law of Russia aimed at providing additional guarantees for the protection of attorney-client confidentiality. The author concludes that the practice of application of the rules containing guarantees of protection of attorney-client confidentiality testifies, on the one hand, to the need to strengthen the protection of citizens' rights to ensure the confidentiality of information provided to the lawyer, and, on the other hand, to the importance of preventing abuse of the right to protection by lawyers and their clients


Grotiana ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-353
Author(s):  
Dire Tladi

Abstract The concept of a Grotian moment remains rather obscure in international law. On the one hand, it can refer simply to an empirical fact which galvanises the ordinary law-making processes, whether treaty-making or State practice, resulting in major shifts in international law. On the other hand, a Grotian moment might be seen as an event so significant that it results in an extraordinary shift in international law without full adherence to the processes for law-making. The former understanding has little legal significance, while the latter, which would be legally significant, would be controversial and without legal basis. Against this background the article discusses the intersections between peremptory norms and Grotian Moments. It does this by looking at the intersection between the two concepts as well as the intersection between Grotian Moments, on the one hand and, on the other hand, particular jus cogens norms. With respect to the former, for example, the article will consider whether the high threshold of peremptory status facilitates and hinders Grotian moments. With respect to the latter, the article will consider particular norms that have been said to have shifted on account of the Grotian moments, namely the right to use of force in self-defence as well humanitarian intervention.


Author(s):  
Andrei V. Bezrukov ◽  
Andrey A. Kondrashev

The article raises the issue of state sovereignty in a federal state and reveals its legal nature. The authors draw attention to the diversity of approaches to the concept and essence of sovereignty, reveal its correlation with related categories, describe the concepts of unity and divisibility of state sovereignty. The paper proves that sovereignty is not a quantitative, but a qualitative characteristic of a state, which is either present or not. The authors substantiate the exclusive possession of state sovereignty by the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of the doctrinal, regulatory sources and the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the authors show that the Russian constitutional model explicitly outlines the principle of solid and indivisible state sovereignty spreading throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation. Recognition of the principle of state sovereignty of Russia presupposes a clear definition of the scope of rights that the Federation should possess in order for its sovereignty to be ensured. The article examines the main features of the state sovereignty of Russia enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, among which are the supremacy of federal law over the law of the subjects of the Federation, the inviolability of borders and territorial integrity, the unity of the economic space, fiscal, banking and monetary systems, common army (Armed Forces), the right of the state to protect its sovereignty and rights of citizens. Despite the unequivocal decision on the integrity of state sovereignty of the Russian Federation expressed the Constitution of the Russian Federation and by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, this fundamental principle is not completely ensured since the idea of the sovereignty of the republics as components of Russia continues to retain its potential threat to Russian federalism, taking into account the provisions of Art. 73 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that provide for the full state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document