Developing the law on the priority of decisions of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation, the developers aimed to achieve execution of decisions of international courts on the territory of Russia, said the head of Committee of Federation Council on constitutional legislation Andrey Klishas.
MOSCOW, 23 Dec. The development of the law on the priority of decisions of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation aimed to achieve execution of decisions of international courts on the territory of Russia, said the head of Committee of Federation Council on constitutional legislation Andrey Klishas.
Earlier Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law giving the COP the right to accept the impossible enforcement in Russia of decisions of international courts, if they violate the rule of the Russian Constitution. The EU has already stated that he is deeply concerned about the adoption of this law, and now it will analyze the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. According to the Commission’s report can be prepared during the first half of 2016.
The opinion of the author
Klishas noted that the law on the constitutional court, one of the authors of which he is, “not much changed”. According to him, “it’s more targeted changes to the law that it clarify, and not Supplement the powers of the constitutional court”.
“The fact that the process is sufficiently clear and precise, and the constitutional court should be the authority, bound to consider requests from the government and the President regarding the possibility, or impossibility, of enforcement of the decisions of interstate bodies,” — said the MP.
Changes in the law, continued the interlocutor of the Agency, “are within those powers which gives the Constitutional court the Constitution itself” of the Russian Federation. “But, in fact, we, of course, was aimed precisely to enforce decisions of international courts on the territory of the Russian Federation”, — said the Senator.
Klishas said that “this law was developed in pursuance of decisions of the constitutional court of the Russian Federation” dated July 14, 2015 on demand of deputies of the state Duma. “MPs rightly asked the constitutional court of the Russian Federation, so as the court explained in the framework of its powers, contrary to the law on ratification of the Convention by the Russian Constitution,” he said.
The COP, by its decision of 14 July ruled that will solve the issue of execution of judgments of the European court of human rights in each case individually and decisions of the ECHR are enforceable only with regard to the recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution.
The Senator noticed that the COP’s decision of 14 July “is very clearly within the European legal tradition”. He explained that “the decision of the Supreme court of the United Kingdom in the “case of Hirst V. United Kingdom”, the decision of the constitutional court of Italy “in the case of Maggio V. Italy” and some other solutions are examples of deviations from the execution of the ECHR decisions”.
“The Supreme court of the United Kingdom, for example, clearly said that he does not consider itself bound by these decisions. This situation arises from the fact that the European Convention as such, since the signature has undergone very significant changes as a result of the interpretation, which gives the European court of human rights”, — said Klishas.
“More than half a century ago no one understood rights and freedoms, as interpreted today and interprets these rights and freedoms the ECHR,” he added.
The Russian Senator also drew attention to the famous case “Anchugov Gladkov V. Russia”, the ECHR considered and associated with the right of citizens containing in places of imprisonment by sentence of the court, to participate in the election of bodies of state power.
“The European court decided in the case “Anchugov and Gladkov V. Russia”, where he said that persons who are in imprisonment places on a court sentence, i.e., condemned for criminal offences, cannot vote,” said Klishas. He noted that “this provision of the Russian Constitution, but the European court in its decision in this case has said that the Russian Federation should provide them this opportunity to vote”.
“In this case what should Russia do? These provisions do not directly follow from the European Convention. The ECtHR held that in this case the violation of the right to free elections. If you look at the legislation of European countries, among them at least 15 States have exactly the same restrictions,” explained the Senator.
The MP also recalled that “the Case “Hirst vs. the United Kingdom” also applies to this question: the UK is not going to do it, because has its own legal tradition.
Answering the question, what needs to be done to fulfill the decision, the Senator said that “the government would have to take and submit the relevant amendment to the legislation, but if such a bill will go to the State Duma, it will be immediately rejected, because it directly contradicts the Constitution”.