scholarly journals Russia — Strasbourg: 25 Years Later

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Valery Dmitrievich Zorkin ◽  

The article summarizes the first results of interaction between Russia and the Council of Europe for 25 years and gives an assessment of their historical significance for the legal development of the country. The author convincingly shows that the Constitutional Court is a guide for the approaches of the Council of Europe bodies to human rights. It is especially noted that the legal positions of the European Court are based on the values generally accepted and shared in the countries of the Council of Europe, to the understanding of which the Russian Federation also contributes. The role of the transparent, predictable model for resolving legal conflicts that may arise between the norms of the Constitution and the interpretation of international agreements given by the body of supranational justice, enshrined in the new version of the Constitution, is separately emphasized.

2017 ◽  
pp. 21-44
Author(s):  
Marianna Abramova

The Russian Federation became a member of the Council of Europe in 1996. This step determined the development of Russia’s judicial system for the coming several decades and made it possible for Russia’s national system of law to integrate into judicial landscape of Europe, thereby enabling Russia to uphold democratic values. The emergence of new legislation affected all branches of Russia’s system of law. But the experience of the two decades has demonstrated that such modernization can be effective only by way of dialogue rather than by simple copying and implementing international rules. An important role in this process was played by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (RF) that was founded in 1991. The paper reviews the role it played in the 1993 Constitutional crisis, examines the Court’s structure and powers, and also analyzes the juridical nature of its decisions. The Author analyzes the collisions between decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitution of Russia from the point of view of the stand taken by the Constitutional Court of the RF. In the¿ end, the Author arrives at the conclusion that there is a need for a dialogue among European and national systems of justice with the help of filtration mechanisms and multilevel constitutionalism.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenia Minakova

The article analyzes methods of ensuring the migrants rights by the public authorities of the Russian Federation, the individual elements of the migration policy of the Russian Federation relating to the activities of public authorities. It considers the activities in the field of protection of the migrants rights by such authorities as the Russian President's Office for Constitutional Rights of Citizens, the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, the Council for Interethnic Relations, General Directorate for Migration, Chief Directorate for Migration Issues of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, their normative documents, that regulate their activities. It examines separately the activities of the RF Government in the field of protection of the migrants rights, as well as judicial authorities; it identifies the special role of the RF Constitutional Court in the field of ensuring the rights of migrants, refugees, the internally displaced and stateless persons. It underlines the role of authority bodies of the RF entities in ensuring the migrants rights in terms of Irkursk Oblast. The article offers to differentiate strictly the role of each authority body in the field of migrants rights protection, as well as to pay specific attention to regulation of activities of the FR entities authority bodies in this direction.


Author(s):  
Butler William E

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-745
Author(s):  
Carlo Casini ◽  
Marina Casini

Il contributo si sofferma sulla questione riguardante la ricerca scientifica sugli embrioni generati in vitro. L’articolo 18 della Convenzione riguarda specificamente la sperimentazione sull’embrione in vitro e per questo esso è sottoposto ad una riflessione particolarmente approfondita. L’obiettivo è quello di capire se dalla Convenzione emergono linee idonee a definire lo statuto giuridico dell’embrione umano. Gli Autori concludono nel senso che nonostante il concetto di pre-embrione (formulato proprio per teorizzare l’insignificanza dell’embrione umano nei primi 14 giorni dalla fecondazione) sia stato accolto in alcune leggi e abbia implicitamente guidato l’interpretazione di alcuni aspetti relativi alla valutazione del valore dell’embrione, la Convenzione di bioetica lo ha definitivamente respinto con il massimo di autorevolezza. La conclusione è raggiunta attraverso l’esame dell’art. 18 considerandone anche la precedente formulazione contenuta in una bozza; mediante una interpretazione sistematica della Convenzione che esige il riconoscimento del concepito, fin dalla fecondazione, come un “essere umano”; esaminando i contributi preparatori elaborati dalla Assemblea Parlamentare del Consiglio d’Europa e del Parlamento Europeo; prendendo in considerazione gli sviluppi della Convenzione di Oviedo con specifico riferimento al tema del pre-embrione. L’indagine si avvale poi anche di ampi riferimenti alla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo del Consiglio d’Europa, alla giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea, ad alcune recenti decisioni della Corte Costituzionale italiana. ---------- The paper focuses on the question concerning scientific research on human embryos generated in vitro. Article 18 of the Oviedo Convention specifically concerns the experimentation on the in vitro embryos and for this reason it is subject to a particularly in-depth reflection. The goal is to understand if the Convention shows suitable lines to define the legal status of the human embryo. The authors conclude that despite the concept of pre-embryo (formulated to theorize the insignificance of the human embryo in the first 14 days of fertilization) has been accepted in some laws and has implicitly guided the interpretation of some aspects related to the evaluation of the value of the embryo, the Bioethics Convention definitively rejected it with the utmost authority. The conclusion is reached through the examination of the art. 18 also considering the previous formulation contained in a draft; through a systematic interpretation of the Convention which requires the recognition of the conceived, from the moment of fertilization, as a “human being”; examining the preparatory contributions prepared by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament; taking into consideration the developments of the Oviedo Convention with specific reference to the theme of the pre-embryo. The investigation also makes use of extensive references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, to the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to some recent decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 869-894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Hartwig

On October 14, 2004 the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – German Federal Constitutional Court) delivered a judgment which gave rise to vivid reactions in the mass media and to a dispute between the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In interviews, members of the Strasbourg court spoke about their disappointment in the German Court's unwillingness to implement decisions of the ECtHR while members of the German court referred to the necessity to respect national particularities. Whereas, normally, the ECtHR and the constitutional courts of the Member States of the Council of Europe are fighting side by side for human rights and, therefore, consider themselves as natural allies, this time their decisions, which seem to be incompatible, led to a dispute which attracted as much public interest as a film or theatre premiere.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Татьяна Шуберт ◽  
Tatyana Shubert

The article examines the ECHR legal nature and types of its decisions, analyzes the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation and the RF Ministry of Justice on the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments. The author notes the role of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in ensuring uniform application of the Convention and Protocols thereto, ratified by the Russian Federation, by the courts of general jurisdiction. The author analyzes reasons for slow and incomplete implementation of the ECHR decisions, and comes up with the measures for their implementation. The article discusses peculiarities of the execution of the ECHR judgments in the Russian Federation: mechanistic execution of the decisions, lack of a systematic approach to the legislation analysis, absence of identification of causes for non-compliance of the regulations with the Convention on Rights of Man and Citizen, lack of coordination between bodies executing the ECHR decisions, inadequate budgetary procedures and lack of funds. The author proposes to analyze structural and general deficiencies in the national law and practice with regard to the ECHR decisions; provides recommendations to improve the mechanism for the judicial decisions’ implementation; determines lines of development for legal regulation of relations in the field of ECHR judgments’ implementation in the Russian legislation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Болотин ◽  
Vladimir Bolotin ◽  
Паньков ◽  
Sergey Pankov

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 .


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document