scholarly journals The Right of Legislative Initiative of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (in the context of the principle of "no man is to be judge in his own case")

Lex Russica ◽  
2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
The Right

Issues of Superion Courts of the Russian Federation when Implementing the Legislative Initiative

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 32-41
Author(s):  
N. G. Stenichkin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The problem. The concept of «issues of reference» is used in the Constitution of the Russian Federation when listing the subjects of the law of legislative initiative in relation to the judiciary. The legislation does not disclose or define this concept, which leads to discussion about its content and, as a result, raises questions about the practical implementation of the separation of powers principle in the legislative process. Aims and objectives of the study: we determined the limitations of the law of legislative initiative of the higher courts of Russia from the point of view the legal grounds for such restrictions, their subjects and legal consequences. Methods: we use both the common scientific methods (e. g. systemic, deductive) as the special-legal methods (formal, dogmatic, state-legal modeling method, comparative legal method etc.). Results: we conclude that «issues of reference» is a special constitutional legal term used in the Constitution of the Russian Federation to describe all functions of the certain branch of power or the public authority. This term in its content is broader than the concepts of «authority», «subjects of jurisdiction» and «jurisdiction». The use of the term «issues of reference» towards the higher courts, as subjects of the right of legislative initiative, does not allow us to assert the constitutional sense of existence various types of legislative initiative right, such as general right and limited (special) right. The practice of exercising the right of legislative initiative by the higher courts, as well as the applying the Procedure Rules of the State Duma of the Russian Federation does not provide for any restrictions on the right of courts to initiate bills. Russian legislation lacks mechanisms for applying the term «issues of reference» as an instrument restricting the constitutional right of the higher courts to participate in the legislative process. Also, such mechanisms are not reflected in the regulatory framework governing the activities of the higher courts. The term «issues of reference», applied to the legislative initiative right of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, does not imply any exemptions from the right to initiate bills given by the Constitution to other entities, but this term is used in the delimitation of legislative functions between the higher courts.

THE RIGHT OF LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE IN THE SYSTEM OF POWERS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2021 ◽  
pp. 46-52
Author(s):  
Dmitrii V. Zmievskii
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
Control Body ◽  
The Right

The article considers the right of legislative initiative of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the light of amendments made to the Fundamental Law of our state in 2020, as well as subsequent updating of special federal constitutional legislation. It is noted that the problem of practice deficiency in implementing the mentioned power by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not new for the Russian legal science; in general, it is naturally determined and is due to a number of objective factors. However, the process of updating and developing the constitutional provisions on the supreme judicial control body of Russia and, in particular, creating the system of preliminary judicial constitutional control, bring the problem under consideration to a qualitatively new level. The approach itself in terms of granting the mentioned power to supreme courts in the Russian Federation is characterized as atypical for the countries near and far abroad. At the same time, the current lack of practice in exercising the power in question by the Constitutional Court is due to the special role of the latter in the system of supreme state authorities, in particular, the judiciary. The point of view is expressed that the problem cannot be unambiguously solved at the present stage of the statehood development. The author does not share the increasingly expressed point of view today that the right of legislative initiative should be excluded from the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, since this will lead to a violation of the equality of the constitutional and legal statuses of the two independent supreme judicial authorities. In addition, the shortcomings in the wording of certain constitutional provisions have been identified and possible ways to eliminate them have been proposed.

Judicial Practice Impact on Law Making

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 0-0 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatyana Shubert
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Making

The article discusses the role of judicial practice in legislative drafting activities, judicial precedent as a source of law, analyzes the problem of revealing legal gaps and contradictions in the current legislation. The author stresses the need for clarification of the term the “right to legislative initiative of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues within their jurisdiction”, and proposes a mechanism for accounting court practice during consideration of draft laws. The author submits the proposal on the adoption of the Federal Law “On Regulatory Legal Acts in the Russian Federation”, which, in the author’s opinion, will permit to overcome legal conflicts between the law and other regulatory legal acts and will create a solid legal framework for law-making and lawenforcement processes, will contribute to the prevention of infringement of legality in the activities of state bodies, business entities and other organizations, and strengthening the guarantees for realization of citizens’ rights and legitimate interests. Besides, the author proposes to amend the State Duma Regulation by adding the provision that when introducing the draft law to the State Duma, the subject with the right of legislative initiative must submit the materials containing system analysis and judicial practice trends regarding the regulation of the draft law in question.

scholarly journals Sovereignty in a Federal State: Theoretical and Legal Bases and Practice of Implementation in Russia

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
Andrei V. Bezrukov ◽  
Andrey A. Kondrashev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
The State ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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

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
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Juridical Acts ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals Indication of Nationality in the Passport of a Citizen of the Russian Federation as a Form of Implementation of the Right to Nationality

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-53
Author(s):  
N. A. Zaynitdinov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
The Right

Constitutionalists in Russia have disagreed on the possibility of specifying nationality of a citizen in the passport. It is believed that at present the indication of nationality in the passport is not made, but it turns out that this is not the case. Implicit declaration of nationality with the help of a special insert is possible for citizens living in the republics and for native speakers of non-Russian state languages of republics. This state of affairs creates inequality for residents of different types of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and for citizens of different nationalities. Nationality of Russians as a national majority is not expressed in the Russian Federation through the statehood itself and through the institution of citizenship as it is done in foreign countries where nationality is not indicated in the passport. The author substantiates an erroneous stance of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on inadmissibility of specifying nationality of a citizen in his or her passport. It is concluded that it is desirable to restore indication of nationality in the passport for all citizens with the aim of the fullest implementation of the right to nationality in the context of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals On the peculiarities of the regional lawmaking process

2020 ◽  
pp. 25-38
Author(s):  
Olga Anatolevna Fomicheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Legislative Initiative ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is practice of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation applied in legal regulation of lawmaking process. Analysis is conducted on legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation regarding the establishment of their rights to realization of the legislative initiative. The author’s arguments on carrying out the analysis of regional legislation with regards to establishment of a circle of subjects with the right of legislative initiative are grounded on the scholars’ opinion that the status of the subject of realization of legislative initiative is special. The fact of recognition of the subject of lawmaking process as a subject of legislative initiative is a juridical fact bot only for acquisition of the right to introduction of a bill, but also guarantees for participation in lawmaking process of the parliament. Therefore, establishment of a circle of subjects with the right of legislative initiative is crucial in determination of peculiarities of the regional lawmaking process. Application of the general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, allowed arranging the circle of the subjects of lawmaking process into groups, as well as formulate a conclusion on the specificities of setting rules for the lawmaking process realized in constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The philosophical methods of cognition of legal reality allowed determining the general rules of lawmaking process, summarize the acquired data, and comprehensively examine the research materials. Having analyzed the practice of legal regulation, the author identified the flaws in terminology used in practice of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Recommendations are made to pay closer attention to ambiguity of legislation in some regions of the Russian Federation. A conclusion is formulated on the positive experience that can become an example for other constituent entities of the Russian Federation in setting rules for the lawmaking process.

Dual Citizenship in Russia

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 57-68
Author(s):  
Alexander Salenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
State Policy ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Dual Citizenship ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

In the USSR, the dual citizenship was expressly prohibited by the Soviet law. After Perestroika, a new stage of Russian statehood began: on 12 December 1993, the Constitution of the modern Russian Federation was adopted, which granted Russian citizens the right to have dual citizenship. Over the past twenty-five years, a new legislation has been adopted on the Russian citizenship, migration, and the state policy regarding compatriots living abroad. During these years, millions of Russian citizens have obtained second (multiple) citizenship, and with it came to questions, disputes and problems that required mediation of the Russian judiciary. In this regard, the main purpose of this article is to analyze the existing domestic legislation and international treaties of Russia on dual citizenship, to determine the dual citizenship regime in Russia - to examine the existing restrictions on the rights and freedom of persons with dual citizenship, and also to study the disputes on dual citizenship in the Russian Federation, in particular to scrutinize the judicial practice (leading cases) of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Based on an analysis performed in the article, the author draws conclusions regarding the further development of dual citizenship within the framework of the Union State of Belarus and Russia, and also investigates prospects of the Eurasian citizenship in the framework of the Eurasian Union. In addition, the author makes a proposal to Russian authorities to make information on registered Russian citizens with dual (multiple) citizenship more accessible and transparent, and also to adopt at the federal level a document on the Russian state policy regarding dual citizenship.

Doctrine “counter-limits” and doctrine “ultra vires” in the context of protection of national constitutional identity

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
OLEG Belosludtsev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Identity

The  article is  devoted to  the  study of  the  connection between the  doctrine of  constitutional identity with the  doctrine of “counter-limits” and the doctrine of “ultra vires”. All these concepts are applied in the practice of European constitutional courts in cases related to the resolution of conventionally constitutional conflicts. Since the doctrine of “constitutional identity” in domestic theory and practice is in its infancy, in the author’s opinion, it is necessary to take into account the foreign experience of protecting national constitutional identity. And also carefully consider all related concepts, such as the doctrine of counter-limits and the doctrine of “ultra vires”, paying special attention to the topic of their relationship. The author, analyzing the doctrine of “counter-limits” and the doctrine of “ultra vires”, comes to the conclusion that these doctrines, along with other instruments for protecting national constitutional identity (the doctrine of the margin of appreciation), can be used in relation to the dispute between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the ECHR on “the right of the last word”.

scholarly journals Reasons Why Inflicting Harm is not a Sufficient Indicator of Abuse of the Right

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
S. V. Musarskiy
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Subjective Rights

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document