Liability for Administrative Offences: Standards of European Court of Human Rights and the Current State of the Legislation on Administrative Offences in Russia

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 307
Author(s):  
Olga E. SHISHKINA ◽  
Olga V. HABIBULINA ◽  
Aleksandr F. REKHOVSKIY
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Economic Reforms ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Current State ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Safeguards ◽  
The One

Recently, there has been a substantial increase in the number of judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the Russian Federation on the complaints filed by Russian citizens, including the complaints related to the liability for administrative offences. The characteristic tendency of the European Court of Human Rights to qualify administrative offences as criminal acts not only brings into focus the issue of ensuring procedural safeguards for individuals charged with administrative offences but also touches upon material aspects of the relation between criminal and administrative law-breaking in Russia as well as changes the traditional juristic view upon the essence of the legislation on administrative offence. Political and economic reforms of Perestroika and the first post-Soviet decade had a significant influence on the institution of administrative justice. Hence, on the one hand, its current state is caused by objective reasons. On the other hand, the legislator, having quite a broad discretion in determining whether to impose administrative or criminal sanctions in each particular case, has seriously blurred the material boundary between criminal and administrative offences. The problem of present-day legislation on administrative offences in Russia is a material hypertrophy of administrative liability together with continuous reduction of procedural safeguards and guarantees for individuals charged with administrative offences. The procedural norms of the existing Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation cannot provide for the adversarial nature of the administrative trial due to the fact that the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation is not methodologically aimed at regulating administrative (judicial) proceedings.

OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 474-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric De Brabandere
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Russian Company ◽  
European Court ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The One

On July 31, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered its final decision on a claim brought by the liquidated Russian company OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (Yukos) against the Russian Federation (Russia), a decision that is the last in a series of three decisions in this case relating respectively to the admissibility of the application, the merits, and just satisfaction.A couple weeks prior to the ECtHR’s decision, three arbitral tribunals established under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and functioning under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules had issued their final awards based on claims brought by three former shareholders of Yukos under the Energy Charter Treaty. The dispute, while brought by the shareholders of Yukos, in essence is the same as the one brought by Yukos against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals Manifestation of Resistance in Constitutional Law (the Case Study of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights)

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 478-481
Author(s):  
Pavel A. Panteleev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Majority Groups ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The One ◽  
International Character

Introduction. The article is devoted to the analysis of conflicts between the interpretation of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights in the context of a particular problem and how the resistance of national legislation to acts of an international character is manifested. Theoretical analysis. The article deals with decisions concerning the promotion of information about homosexual preferences to minors, which, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, may harm their development. The European Court considers that this restriction is a kind of violation of the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. Also, a resolution was adopted, according to which the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are priority in relation to acts of an international character. In this regard, the Constitutional Court in its response decision declared it impossible to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to award compensation by the Russian Federation to the YUKOS company. Conclutions. The following conclusions are presented. Despite the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its decisions, seeks to achieve a compromise between the interests of the majority groups of the country’s population and private individual preferences, as well as a dialogue with the international court of justice on the principle of equal partnership. These components are the basis for the stability of our legislation and our values, since, on the one hand, it does not allow harmful acts of a normative nature to penetrate and take hold, and, on the other hand, it preserves the democratic essence of Russian law. To implement the above in real life, we recommend the following: 1) adhere to and seek a balance between different systems of values, 2) justify at the level of theory and introduce into legal practice the doctrine of the constitutional identity of the country, based on the interpretation of the basic values of the Russian Federation.

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.

scholarly journals The Material and Procedural Aspects of Non Bis In Idem Principle in Proceedings on Administrative Offenses

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 39-42
Author(s):  
Artem R. Nobel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Administrative Responsibility

The essence of the principle of one-time administrative responsibility is considered, its concept and proposals for improving the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation are formulated. The conclusions are based on the provisions of the legislation on administrative offenses, the legal positions of the highest courts of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights, a comparative analysis of the current criminal and criminal procedure legislation. The operation of the principle non bis in idem in proceedings on the cases of administrative offenses is revealed by highlighting the material and procedural elements that make up its content.

scholarly journals INDICATIVE APPROACH IN THE EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE STATE LANGUAGES OF THE RF SUBJECTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Damir Kh. Valeev ◽  
Anas G. Nuriev ◽  
Rafael V. Shakirjanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Current State ◽  
Hand Signal ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The One ◽  
Judicial Protection

The implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection is an important guarantee for participants in legal relations in case of violation of the rights of one of the parties or a threat of violation of the rights of participants in legal relations. Judicial protection is of particular relevance for the participants in legal relations, who do not speak the languages in which the administration of justice is carried out. Within the framework of this article, the authors analyze indicators that are designed to, on the one hand, signal on the current state and existing possibilities of implementing the constitutional right to judicial protection in the state languages of the subject of the Russian Federation (statistical function), and, on the other hand, determine growth drivers that can provide language guarantees for the territory of our state, which is defined as a democratic federal legal state according to Art. 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Within the framework of this article, three indicators are highlighted and analyzed: 1) existing legal potential for the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation; 2) analysis of the practical implementation of the opportunities currently available for the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation; 3) determination of growth points in the implementation of the constitutional right to judicial protection in civil cases in the state languages of the republics within the Russian Federation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document