Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Since 1989, in the USSR, the functions of the Constitutional Court were assigned to the Union Committee for Constitutional Oversight of the USSR . On July 12, 1991, the RSFSR Law "On the Constitutional Court" created the Republican Constitutional Court of the RSFSR, first elected by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR on October 30, 1991, composed of 13 judges:

• Zorkin, Valery Dmitrievich - Chairman
• Kononov, Anatoly Leonidovich
• Ebzeev, Boris Safarovich
• Lucin, Victor Osipovich
• Oleinik, Vladimir Ivanovich
• Gadzhiev, Gadis Abdullaevich
• Vitruk, Nikolai Vasilievich
• Seleznev, Nikolai Vasilievich
• Vedernikov, Nikolai Trofimovich
• Tiunov, Oleg Ivanovich
• Morshchakova, Tamara Georgievna
• Amethysts, Ernest Mikhailovich
• Rudkin, Yuri Dmitrievich

In 1992-1993, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation actively participated in resolving the constitutional crisis . Its chairman, Valery Zorkin, participated in the negotiations between President Boris Yeltsin and the Supreme Council in December 1992 , which ended with the signing of an agreement between Yeltsin and Khasbulatov, which provided for a postponement of the entry into force of amendments to the Constitution, which cut off the powers of the president, until the referendum in April 1993

On March 23, 1993, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared the televised address of President Yeltsin to the people of March 20 unconstitutional ^[2] , which served as the basis for considering the issue of the president’s removal from office.

On September 21, 1993, President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin announced the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council . The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued Opinion No. З-2 "On the Compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of actions and decisions of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin related to its Decree of September 21, 1993" On phased constitutional reform in the Russian Federation " , on the basis of which The Supreme Council and the Congress removed B. N. Yeltsin from the post of President of the Russian Federation ^[3] .

After the events of October 3–4, 1993, B. N. Yeltsin suspended the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, and in 1994 a new law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was adopted. According to it, the court lost the right to consider cases on its own initiative and evaluate the constitutionality of the actions of certain officials, as well as the constitutionality of parties. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the court consisted of 19 judges, previously elected judges retained their powers until the expiration of the term for which they were appointed.

6 new judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation were appointed by the Council of the Federation of the Russian Federation in October 1994 - February 1995 (according to the judge of the Constitutional Court G. Hajiyev, the expansion of the composition of the Constitutional Court was caused by the desire of President Yeltsin to secure an advantage over the 9 judges who voted against him during the crisis ^[4] ), Vladimir Tumanov was elected its chairman, in 1997, Marat Baglay became the new chairman, and in 2003 Valery Zorkin was again elected.

During this time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation adopted more than 200 decisions. Most of the cases examined concerned the verification of constitutionality of laws. More than 30 times certain provisions of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure were recognized as unconstitutional.

The head of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is the chairman. In accordance with Article 23 of the Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 No. 1-FKZ (as amended on December 25, 2012) “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”:

• The President of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation shall be appointed by the Council of the Federation on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation for a term of six years from among the judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
• The Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has two deputies, who are appointed by the Federation Council on the proposal of the President of the Russian Federation for a term of six years from among the judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
• The Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, upon the expiration of their term of office, may be appointed for a new term.

The staffing for 2016 is 233 units. ^[five]

During its existence, the Constitutional Court adopted several thousand decisions and determinations. The vast majority of decisions are made on complaints from citizens and organizations. Decisions are made less frequently at the request of the courts, and very rarely at the request of deputies of the State Duma and regional parliaments. For example, in 2014, the Constitutional Court issued 33 judgments, of which 20 were issued on complaints of citizens, 4 on complaints of legal entities, 2 on requests of courts, 2 on requests of regional parliaments, 1 on request of the President of the Russian Federation, and only 1 on requests of a group of deputies of the State Duma ^[6] . The Constitutional Court often combines complaints concerning one subject and (or) requests of different applicants in one case. Therefore, in 2014 also 1 decision was made on the complaints of several legal entities combined in one case and a court request, 1 decision was made on the request of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, complaints of several citizens and one legal entity combined in one case, 1 resolution on complaints of several citizens and one legal entity ^[6] . When making new decisions, the regulatory framework is not only the text of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also the decisions and definitions previously adopted by the Constitutional Court. Also, the Constitutional Court sometimes refers to the norms of international documents of the UN and the Council of Europe. For example, the Decree of the Constitutional Court No. 28-P of November 11, 2014 mentions the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuses of Power, adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1985 ^[7] . Also, the Constitutional Court sometimes apparently focuses on the current situation in Russia. An example is the following case. Citizen N.V. Chevanin, to whom the fine for taking a bribe was replaced by 7 years in prison, appealed to this body, arguing that it was unconstitutional to replace a huge fine with only imprisonment, not taking into account that the convicted person could not pay it on objective grounds: age , health status, and also because of an injunction to work. However, the Constitutional Court recognized that such a replacement does not contradict the Constitution of Russia, citing the fact that “corruption is currently recognized as one of the systemic threats to the security of the Russian Federation (subparagraph“ a ”of paragraph 7 of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 13, 2010 No. 460), which includes giving and receiving a bribe ” ^[8] .

Legal implications of decisions

The decision of the Constitutional Court is a normative act of direct action that stands above any federal law and is not subject to appeal. The legal consequences of the ruling of the Constitutional Court are as follows:

1. Revision of earlier court decisions in the applicant’s case . This is usually indicated in the operative part of the Constitutional Court Decision. Such a review takes place by the applicant submitting an application to the court of first instance that examined his case. At the same time, the case may be considered again by the same composition of the court that the applicant refused during the initial consideration of the case. Example. In 2013, the Constitutional Court, on the complaints of citizens (laid-off workers) K. M. Shcherbina, O. A. Kurashkin and others, partially recognized the norms of the Labor Code that allow terminating the contract with an employee of an educational organization who had a criminal record (Resolution No. 19-P of 18.07 .2013) and indicated that the applicants ’cases were subject to review ^[9] . The applicant K. M. Shcherbina exercised this right and was reinstated at work with payment of involuntary absenteeism (and partial reimbursement of the costs of the state duty and the representative in the Constitutional Court) by the same judge ^[10] , who had earlier refused to reinstate him in the same case ^[11] .
2. Establishment of new legal norms and procedures . The Constitutional Court sometimes actually introduces new rules of law. For example, in the Decree of February 17, 2015, the Constitutional Court established that it is not allowed to conduct a second prosecutor’s check against a non-profit organization for the same facts that were in the initial check (except for cases when the elimination of violations of the law was conducted within a reasonable time after they were discovered) ^[12] .
3. The abolition of existing legal norms and the obligation of the federal legislator to amend the legal norms within the prescribed period . Sometimes the Constitutional Court orders the authorities to amend laws and sometimes severely limits the time period for eliminating detected violations of the law. For example, in the Decree of December 11, 2014, the Constitutional Court ordered the federal legislator to make certain amendments to article 159.4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation within six months. At the same time, the court found that “if, after six months from the date of the proclamation of this decision, the federal legislator does not make the appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Article 159.4 of this Code shall cease to be in force” ^[13] .

Revision of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

The decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is final and not subject to appeal ^[14] .

If new complaints come to the previously checked rule of law, then the Constitutional Court refuses to accept them for consideration with reference to a previous ruling or decision. However, in 2015, the body accepted for consideration the complaint of S. V. Makhin on Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, stating the following: “the question posed by the applicant was already touched upon in complaints submitted to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, on which decisions were made, but in connection with the ongoing by the receipt of complaints about the violation of the constitutional rights of citizens by the indicated norms, and also taking into account the prevailing practice of their application, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considers it possible to return to the issue of their constitutionality and accept the complaint of S. V. Makhin for consideration ” ^[15] .

The ECHR does not consider a complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as an effective remedy. Therefore, before filing a complaint with the ECHR, the applicant may not apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the presence of a filed complaint with the ECHR does not deprive the applicant of the right to file a complaint on the same issue with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

However, in the 2000s, situations emerged where the decision of the ECHR in the applicant’s case contradicts the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued in the same case of the same applicant.

On April 12, 2011, the ECHR issued a decision in the case of the Republican Party of Russia v. Russia, in which it criticized the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the same case (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 1-P of February 1, 2005) ^[16] . The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation criticized by the ECHR was as follows ^[17] :

in modern conditions, when Russian society has not yet gained a solid experience of democratic existence, despite the fact that there are serious challenges from separatist, nationalist, terrorist forces, the creation of regional political parties - since they would seek to uphold mainly their own, purely regional and local , interests - could

would lead to a violation of state integrity and unity of the system of state power as the basis of the federal structure of Russia

In the same decision, the ECHR did not actually agree with the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Decree No. 11-P of January 16, 2007) that the federal legislator has the right to establish requirements for the size of the party and its regional branches ^[18] . As a result, the decision of the ECHR was enforced - the Republican Party of Russia was registered, and the minimum number of members required to register the party in 2012 was legally reduced from 50 thousand to 500 people ^[19] .

The second case, where the positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the ECHR diverged, was the case of Konstantin Markin. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its Decree of January 15, 2009, indicated that the absence of male soldiers the right to leave to care for a child until they reach the age of three (if women have such a right) does not violate the provisions of the Russian Constitution on equality regardless of gender ^{[ 20]} . The ECHR found this provision discriminatory and awarded Markin compensation of 200 euros (increased by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR to 6,150 euros) ^[20] .

• 1993 - The Constitutional Court makes a decision on the unconstitutionality of the president’s actions , the Supreme Council decides to terminate the powers of President Yeltsin and transfer them, according to the Constitution, to Vice-President A.V. Rutsky , announces the convocation of the X (Extraordinary) Congress of People’s Deputies.
• 1995 - The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the provisions of the acts of the president and government aimed at restoring constitutional legality in the Chechen Republic ^[21] .
• 1996 - The Constitutional Court declared the provisions of the Charter of the Altai Territory unconstitutional, according to which the legislative assembly of the territory had the right to appoint and dismiss the governor ^[22] .
• 1996 - The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation declared unconstitutional a number of provisions of the laws of certain constituent entities of the Russian Federation (the city of Moscow, Moscow Region, Stavropol Territory, Voronezh Region) restricting the freedom of movement of citizens ^[23] .
• 1998 - The Constitutional Court issued a ruling regarding the limitation of the terms of office for the President of the Russian Federation. Two consecutive terms of office, referred to in article 81 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, constitute a constitutional limit, the excess of which the Constitution of the Russian Federation, including clause 3 of its section two “Final and transitional provisions”, does not allow ^[24] .
• 2000 - The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Constitution of the Altai Republic, and subsequently a number of other Russian republics, proclaiming the sovereignty of these republics and infringing on the rights of the Federation ^[25] .
• 2005 год — Конституционный суд подтвердил конституционность принятого по инициативе Президента Российской Федерации закона о новом порядке назначения высших должностных лиц субъектов Российской Федерации законодательными органами по предложению президента России ^[26] .
• 2015 год — Конституционный суд установил порядок имплементации правовых позиций, выраженных в решениях Европейского суда по правам человека (ЕСПЧ), в российское национальное законодательство. Процедура установлена следующая — после вынесения решения ЕСПЧ, в котором установлено, что определенное положение законодательства Российской Федерации, примененное в деле, нарушает права заявителя, последний подает в суд первой инстанции на пересмотр своего дела. Суд первой инстанции обязан приостановить производство по делу и обратиться с запросом в Конституционный суд для проверки на соответствие Конституции Российской Федерации спорного положения российского законодательства. Если же Конституционный суд Российской Федерации признает, что данное истолкование ЕСПЧ противоречит Конституции Российской Федерации, то это решение не подлежит исполнению ^[27] .
• 2016 год — Конституционный суд разрешил судам снижать компенсацию за нарушение исключительного авторского права ниже минимального установленного законом предела в 10 000 рублей (при нарушении прав на несколько объектов интеллектуальной собственности ) ^{[28] [29]} .
• 2017 год — Конституционный суд впервые в истории Европы принял решение о запрете Правительству России выплачивать компенсацию по решению международного суда по Делу ЮКОСа ^[30] . Исполнение решения ЕСПЧ о компенсации бывшим акционерам ЮКОСа в размере €1,8 млрд КС счёл невозможным, поскольку такая выплата нарушила бы конституционные принципы «социального государства, равенства и справедливости». В особом мнении судья КС Владимир Ярославцев выступил против рассмотрения дела: обратившийся в суд Минюст должен был подать апелляцию в международные инстанции, а не искать «упрощенный» выход в российском Конституционном суде ^[31] .
• 2018 год — Конституционный суд подтвердил конституционность Соглашения об установлении границ между Республикой Ингушетия и Чеченской Республикой, подписанное главами этих регионов ^[32] . Суд сделал вывод, что границы между субъектами Российской Федерации могут быть установлены без проведения референдума и учета мнения населения муниципальных образований и признал Соглашение и Закон Республики Ингушетия о его утверждении подлежащими применению вопреки ранее принятому решению Конституционного Суда Республики Ингушетия ^[33] .

Конституционный суд Российской Федерации согласно статье 125 Конституции:

• По запросам Президента Российской Федерации, Совета Федерации или одной пятой его членов, Государственной думы или одной пятой её депутатов, Правительства Российской Федерации, Верховного суда Российской Федерации, органов законодательной и исполнительной власти субъектов Российской Федерации разрешает дела о соответствии Конституции Российской Федерации федеральных законов, нормативных актов Президента Российской Федерации, Совета Федерации, Государственной думы, Правительства Российской Федерации, конституций республик, уставов, а также законов и иных нормативных актов субъектов Российской Федерации, изданных по вопросам ведения Российской Федерации и совместного ведения, договоров между органами государственной власти, не вступивших в силу международных договоров Российской Федерации.
• Разрешает споры о компетенции между органами государственной власти Российской Федерации и субъектов Российской Федерации.
• По жалобам на нарушение конституционных прав и свобод граждан и по запросам судов проверяет конституционность закона, применённого или подлежащего применению в конкретном деле.
• По запросу Президента, Государственной думы, Правительства, Совета Федерации, органов законодательной власти субъектов Российской Федерации даёт толкование Конституции Российской Федерации.
• По запросу Совета Федерации даёт заключение о соблюдении установленного порядка выдвижения обвинения против Президента Российской Федерации.

Также Конституционный суд Российской Федерации осуществляет иные полномочия, предоставленные ему Конституцией (например, согласно ст. 104 он также вправе выступать с законодательной инициативой по вопросам своего ведения) и федеральными конституционными законами (например, по запросу Президента Российской Федерации или Верховного Суда проверяет конституционность референдума Российской Федерации согласно статьям 15 и 23 закона «О референдуме Российской Федерации»).

См. также: Судьи Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации

• Зорькин, Валерий Дмитриевич — председатель
• Маврин, Сергей Петрович — заместитель председателя
• Арановский, Константин Викторович
• Бойцов, Александр Ильич
• Бондарь, Николай Семенович
• Гаджиев, Гадис Абдуллаевич
• Данилов, Юрий Михайлович
• Жаркова, Людмила Михайловна
• Казанцев, Сергей Михайлович
• Князев, Сергей Дмитриевич
• Кокотов, Александр Николаевич
• Красавчикова, Лариса Октябриевна
• Мельников, Николай Васильевич
• Рудкин, Юрий Дмитриевич
• Ярославцев, Владимир Григорьевич

Отставки судей в конце 2009 года

2 декабря 2009 года Совет судей России принял самоотвод судьи Конституционного суда Российской Федерации Владимира Ярославцева как члена Совета судей, который в августе этого года выступил с жесткими обвинениями в адрес руководства страны и созданной им вертикали власти ^[34] . При этом В. Г. Ярославцев остался судьей Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации.

Судья Анатолий Кононов написал заявление об уходе со своей должности с 1 января 2010 года . Причина ухода — несогласие с нарушением принципа независимости судей со стороны исполнительной власти России ^[34] .

С предложением о переносе суда из Москвы в Санкт-Петербург выступил в октябре 2005 года Председатель Совета Федерации Сергей Миронов ^[35] .

5 февраля 2007 года Президентом Российской Федерации был подписан Федеральный конституционный закон № 2-ФКЗ об изменении места постоянного пребывания Конституционного суда с Москвы на Санкт-Петербург .

23 декабря 2007 года был издан Указ Президента Российской Федерации «О месте постоянного пребывания Конституционного суда Российской Федерации» ^[36] , которым устанавливалось, что переезд Суда должен быть осуществлён в сроки с 1 февраля по 20 мая 2008 года.

Суд разместился в здании Сената .

• Разделение властей
• Судьи Конституционного суда Российской Федерации
• Правовое государство
• Конституционная экономика
• О состоянии судебной системы в России Международная комиссия юристов , 2010
• Таблица особых мнений судей Конституционного суда РФ

• Конституция Российской Федерации: Энциклопедический словарь / Авт. коллектив: В. А. Туманов , В. Е. Чиркин , Ю. А. Юдин ; Руководитель авт. коллектива С. М. Шахрай . - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. В. А. Тумановым. — М. : Большая российская энциклопедия : Юристъ, 1997. — 319 с. — (Interpretationes). — ISBN 5-7357-0143-6 .
• Баглай М. В. , Туманов В. А. Малая энциклопедия конституционного права. — М. : БЕК, 1998. — 505 с. — ISBN 5-85639-241-8 .

• Официальный сайт Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации.
• Указ Президента РСФСР от 14.12.1991 N 284
• Закон РСФСР от 6 мая 1991 года О Конституционном Суде РСФСР.
• Астафьева Н. Нестрашный суд.
• Баренбойм П. Д. Путешествие из Москвы в Петербург и судьба российского конституционализма: о переезде Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации . — М., Юстицинформ, 2006. ISBN 5-7205-0788-4 .
• Постановление Верховного Совета РСФСР от 06.07.1991 № 1549-I «О кандидатурах судей Конституционного Суда РСФСР»