scholarly journals Comparative analysis of the approaches of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights to the protection of property rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 168-175
Author(s):  
A. A. Drozdov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article substantiates the leading role of the right of private property in the economic system of a state with a market economy, and therefore points to the need to comply with increased guarantees of its protection. It also states that there are problems with the protection of property rights. Then the author substantiates the obligation for all Russian authorities of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. A comparative analysis of these positions and approaches to the protection of property rights leads the author to the conclusion that the goal of their harmonization has been partially achieved. In order to increase the effectiveness of the protection of rights, it is necessary to further implement the approaches of the European Court, which increase the guarantees of protection, into the Russian legal system, and it is also necessary to consider the issue of introducing point changes into Russian legislation taking into account these approaches.

scholarly journals Protection of property rights by the ombudsman in the Russian Federation: improving approaches

2021 ◽  
pp. 236-244
Author(s):  
A. A. Drozdov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Strict Compliance ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the protection of property rights by the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation. The author believes that the activities of the Commissioner contribute to the development of the institution of property in Russia. The text reveals the constitutional content and significance of the inviolability of property for the legal system of the state and the development of the rule of law. The author concludes that the relevant protection should be carried out in strict compliance with the principle of maintaining a balance of private and public interests, and in order to improve approaches to protection, it is necessary to consider the interpretation of this principle given by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. In support of these conclusions, the author reveals the corresponding approaches to the interpretation of the protection of property rights of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals The System of Procedural Principles of Proceedings in Administrative Offenses Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 153-159
Author(s):  
A. R. Nobel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The paper provides definitions of the principles and system of principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses. Based on the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and the practice of their application, the author substantiates the position that the principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are, to varying degrees, enshrined in regulatory legal acts constituting legislation on administrative offenses, both directly and indirectly. The system of procedural principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses is revealed. The author includes the following principles in this system: open consideration; state language; direct examination of evidence; freedom to evaluate evidence; compulsory consideration of applications; freedom to appeal against procedural decisions; competition and equality of the parties; fair consideration of the case; ensuring the right to defense. The content of these principles having a pronounced procedural nature is formed through a systemic interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights. The author concludes that, despite the existence of various ways of consolidating the procedural principles of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses, the greatest efficiency of their perception and application will be achieved only when the principles are reflected in a special chapter of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

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 The right to peaceful enjoyment of property and the security measure of the forfeiture of cash in the jurisprudence of the Serbian Constitutional Court: Certain uncertainty

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-644
Author(s):  
Tamás Korhecz
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Cash Transfer ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property is a first-generation human right, protected by the international and domestic law of the highest rank. This is not an absolute right - the European standards of protecting property rights allow possible interferences prescribed by law. The interferences can be made in the public interest but only under the assumption that the proportionality between the public interest and property rights of individuals at stake is established. Forfeiture of undeclared cash the individuals are transferring across state borders, together with imposing fines for a misdemeanor, represent an interference with individuals' property rights. The EU Member States do not share an identical system of sanctions for this petty offense, but there is a tendency of unification related to the monitoring, registering, and sanctioning of undeclared, cross-border, individual cash transfer. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has established rather precise criteria for distinguishing permitted from unpermitted interferences in cases of undeclared cross-border cash transfers. The Serbian Constitutional Court has been faced with several constitutional complaints regarding alleged unconstitutionally of the imposed security measure amounting to the forfeiture of undeclared cash physically transferred across the state borders. The Constitutional Court has ruled inconsistently on the matter. Although it has regularly referred to the European Court of Human Rights' relevant decisions, it fails to be consistent in following the Strasbourg Court's rulings. In this article, the author has suggested that the legal certainty principle requires the Constitutional Court to consistently interpret the constitutional rights and be systematic in following Strasbourg. Only in this way, the Constitutional Court can help regular courts effectively to harmonize the interpretation and application of laws with the constitutional and international human rights standards regarding property rights.

RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF A MAN AND A CITIZEN IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AS A MEANS OF DEFENSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Болотин ◽  
Vladimir Bolotin ◽  
Паньков ◽  
Sergey Pankov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Legal Instrument ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional System

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 .

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document