Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2017. Issue 4 (38) |
||||||||||
Title: | REFUSAL TO IMPLEMENT THE DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JUDICIARY ON PROTECTION OF THE CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS | |||||||||
Authors: |
К. M. Khudoley, |
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | ||||||||
ORCID: | 0000-0003-1805-0674 | ResearcherID: | E-3186-2016 | |||||||
Статьи автора в БД «Scopus» и «Web of Science»: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2015-2-29-40 10.17072/1995-4190-2016-34-391-401 |
|||||||||
Requisites: | Khudoley К. M. Otkaz ot ispolneniya resheniy mezhdunarodnykh sudebnykh organov po zashchite prav i svobod grazhdan [Refusal to Implement the Decisions of the International Judiciary on Protection of the Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms]. Vestnik Permskogo Universiteta. Juridicheskie Nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2017. Issue 38. Pp. 463–473. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2017-38-463-473 | |||||||||
DOI: | 10.17072/1995-4190-2017-38-463-473 | |||||||||
Annotation: |
Introduction: the article analyzes the relationship between the enforcement of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and those of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Purpose: to examine the provisions of the federal legislation on the refusal to implement the ECtHR decisions, as well as the decisions of the constitutional courts concerning the place of the ECtHR judgments in national legal systems; to substantiate the illegality of the complete refusal to comply with the ECtHR decisions by the states being parties to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Methods: the methodological framework of the study is based on a set of methods of scientific cognition, including the dialectical method and general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction). The author also uses some specific scientific methods (formal-legal, comparative law). Special attention is paid to comparative and system research methods. Results: the complete refusal to execute the ECtHR judgments contradicts the constitutional rights of citizens to judicial protection and the fundamental principle of international law pacta sunt servanda. Constitutional control over the decisions of the ECtHR not only means the conditional nature of the provisions of part four of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also stipulates the incursion of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation into the competence of the ECtHR on the interpretation of the provisions of the ECHR. Conclusions: the complete refusal to implement the decisions of the ECtHR in respect of measures of an individual nature (including payment of monetary compensation) in the territory of Russia is unacceptable. It seems to be correct that the competent state authorities can look for alternative ways of implementing the ECtHR judgments through the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation performing constitutional interpretation or adjustment of the constitutional meaning of the normative act previously recognized as incompatible with the ECHR by the ECtHR decision and, also, through changing the subordinate regulation. |
|||||||||
Keywords: | Constitution; Constitutional Court; constitutional justice; European Court of Human Rights; European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms; right to appeal; public authorities; decision; refusal to implement decisions | |||||||||
download the full-version article |
||||||||||
References: | 1. Gracheva (Perchatkina) S. A. Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie i realizatsiya resheniy Evro¬peyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka: nauchno-prakticheskoe posobie [Constitutional Justice and Implementation of Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: Scientific-Practical Guide]. 2012. 240 p. (In Russ.). 2. Dolzhikov A. V. «Gordost' i predubezhdenie»: sorazmernost' polnogo konstitutsionnogo zapreta zaklyuchennym golosovat' v Rossii. Postanovlenie Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka ot 4 iyulya 2013 goda ["Pride and Prejudice": Proportionality of Blanket Con¬stitutional Ban on the Right to Vote for Detained Persons in Russia. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2013]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie – Inter¬national Justice. 2013. Issue 4. Pp. 11–31. (In Russ.). 3. Zor'kin V. D. Predel ustupchivosti [Limit of Compliance]. Rossiyskaya gazeta – Russian Gazette. 2010. October 29. (In Russ.). 4. Kuznezova O. A. Yuridicheskaya sila obshche¬priznannykh printsipov i norm mezhdunarodnogo prava v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme [Validity of the Conventional Principles and Norms of International Law in the Russian Legal System]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoprime¬nitel'naya praktika – Jurisprudence and Law Enforcement Practice. 2009. Issue 3. Pp. 4–10. (In Russ.). 5. Lubbe-Wolff G. Evropeyskiy sud po pravam cheloveka i natsional'nye sudy – delo Ger-gyulyu [The European Court of Human Rights and National Courts: Gorgulu Case]. Srav¬nitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie – Compa¬rative Constitutional Review. 2006. Issue 1. Pp. 39–42. (In Russ.). 6. Khudoley D. M. Klassifikatsiya izbiratel'nykh sistem [Classification of Electoral Systems]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2016. Issue 3 (33). Pp. 258–267. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2016-33-258-267. 7. Betlem G. The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation. Managing Legal Uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 22. No. 3. Pp. 397–418. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1093/ojls/ 22.3.397. 8. Bogdandy A. von Pluralism, Direct Effect, and the Ultimate Say: On the Relationship between International and Domestic Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2008. Vol. 6. No. 3–4. Pp. 397–413. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1093/icon/mon015. 9. Dzehtsiarou K. European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the ECHR. German Law Journal. 2011. Vol. 12. Pp. 1730–1745. (In Eng.). 10. Gomien D., Harris D., Zvaak L. Law and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Social Charter. Council of Europe. Strasbourg, 1998. 480 p. (In Eng.). 11. Haller H. The Interplay between the Austrian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. Proceedings of Conference on the Interaction of National Courts with European Courts (Batumi, Georgia, 6–7 November, 2007). Strasbourg, 2007. 100 p. (In Eng.). 12. Hesse K. Grundzüge des Verfassungsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Heidelberg, 1999. 335 p. (In Germ.). |
|||||||||
Financing: | --- |