scholarly journals Reforming the National System of Law as a Response to Pilot Rulings

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 116-119
Author(s):  
O.A. Golikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
European Convention ◽  
National System ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Executive System

The article deals with the problem of implementation by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the European Convention on human rights of 1950. the article Deals with systematic violations of article 3 of the Convention in the framework of the criminal Executive system. The article analyzes the judicial practice of the European court of human rights in the light of violations of this article. The practice of making pilot judgments by the Court is noted as a measure of improving the mechanism of legal protection, namely, improving the conditions of transportation of persons deprived of liberty.

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.

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.

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.

Re Review of Constitutionality of Article 11 and Article 392(4) Items 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 194 ◽  
pp. 487-502
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

487Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Execution of judgments of European Court of Human Rights — Russian judgments — Whether European Court of Human Rights’ judgments providing grounds for reconsideration of decision in a civil case where opposing decision of Constitutional Court existing — Russian law — Article 392(4) of Russian Civil Procedure Code — The law of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals Enforceability of ECtHR Judgements in Russia: Alternatives of Interaction Between Jurisdictions

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01192
Author(s):  
Ivan Usenkov ◽  
Igor Morozov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Russian Federation

Issues of enforceability of the European Court of Human Rights judgements in Russia are considered in the article. The authors infer the priority of the model, in which judgements can be unimplemented if they are contrary to the constitutional law of the country in accordance with comparative legal analysis. However, the state is ought to make everything possible in order to enforce the decision, even interpret the Constitution, if possible. The authors conclude that issues of correlation of sovereignty and regional consensus, subsidiarity principles and supranationality, interpretation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms have not obtained a response. The European Court of Human Rights should be more thorough with the aspects of the national legal systems, but rejection of the execution of its judgements is unacceptable. Relevant provisions are to be excluded from the FCL from 21.07.1994 N 1-FCL «The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation».

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 HATE CRIMES, THE HATE SPEECH PHENOMENON, PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RUSSIAN APPROACH TO DETERMINING EXTREMIST ACTIVITY

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-122
Author(s):  
Vyacheslav V. Koryakovtsev ◽  
Kseniia V. Pitulko ◽  
Anzhelika A. Sergeeva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The subject of the research is criminal law rules that provide for criminal liability for hate crimes and the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on hate crimes. The purpose of the article is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that a unified approach to the definition of the legal concept of hate speech and the limits of its application is nec-essary. This approach must be based on the legal positions of the European Court of Hu-man Rights The research methodology includes analysis and interpretation of court decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a dialectical approach to the analysis of vari-ous points of view to the definition of extremist activity. The main results and scope of their application. The relevance of the research proposed for publication is due to the lack of uniform practice of applying the articles of the Russian Criminal Code on so-called "hate crimes" by Russian courts and the presence of signifi-cant contradictions in the positions of the European Court of Human Rights and the state position of the Russian Federation in defining key concepts in this area that are extremely important for criminal procedure and administrative activities. The paper considers scien-tific and practical attempts to define "hate crimes" in the global and regional human rights systems, basic recommendations of the UN on countering such crimes, and offers an interpretation of the term hate speech in relation to the related criminological concept of hate crime. The text provides statistical data describing the level of such crime and the practice of the ECHR in this area, mentions a list of criteria according to which "hate crimes" can be motivated by language differences, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics, as well as criteria that distinguish hate speech from freedom of expres-sion, and suggests decriminalization of part 1 of article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. Conclusions. It is necessary to unify the concepts of "hate crimes" (and the practice of their application) in the direction of, in particular, reducing the number of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation and increasing the level of legal protection of both the individual citizen of the Russian Federation and freedom of speech and expression.

scholarly journals The Relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Conflicting Conceptions of Sovereignty in Strasbourg and St Petersburg

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 933-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kahn
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Interpretive Authority ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Russia eagerly ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1998. Twenty years later, the chair of its Constitutional Court now expresses resentment at the subordination of Russian sovereignty. A new law expands his Court’s jurisdiction to deny effect to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, an unprecedented power that has already been used twice. This article analyses this law and its application in its first two years. Both the claim of ‘subordination’ and the Russian response to it, in law and practice, rest on weak legal ground. But Russia’s action also raises deeper theoretical and practical questions for the ECHR as a ‘living instrument’ subject to the ‘evolutive’ interpretations of the Strasbourg Court. If other member states mimic Russia’s response to these issues, a European human rights system premised on the final interpretive authority of an international court could come to its end.

scholarly journals Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to the Conflict in Ukraine

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-78
Author(s):  
Stuart Wallace ◽  
Conall Mallory
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Different Parts

The“annexation” of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine have resulted in widespread human rights abuses. Both Ukraine and the Russian Federation are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention should apply within the territory and to the conflict. However, recent applications to the European Court of Human Rights reveal a great deal of confusion over which State bears responsibility for protecting human rights in different parts of Ukraine. This article seeks to shine a light on this problem presenting a deep analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and discussing how it applies to both the conflict in Eastern Ukraine and “annexed” Crimea. It addresses salient issues such as responsibility for the actions of non-state actors and armed groups in Eastern Ukraine and whether the legality of the “annexation” has any bearing on the human rights obligations of each State. The article presents a detailed critique of recent judgments from the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the jurisprudence of the Court has created a bewildering degree of complexity and uncertainty as to the obligations of each State and discussing the practical implications of this uncertainty.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document