“We are almost the only ones in the European region who so famously secured secondary own Constitution”
Today, 19:49 Views: 1647
The content of the Constitutional Court were read on Tuesday, 14 of July did not come as a surprise. Prior to that, the authorities unanimously spoke in favor of an option, where national law should prevail over international. President Vladimir Putin said that Russia may withdraw from the general jurisdiction of the ECHR. An alternative view that clarification of disputes in the international and domestic law should deal with the European Court, submitted only human rights center “Memorial».
Photo: Alex Geldings
, the COP decided supremacy of the Constitution in the implementation of decisions of the ECHR, but to develop a scenario proposed by Putin, did not. Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court Vladimir Radchenko called the decision an “objective.” “I’m always surprised that the document setting forth the priority of international law itself becomes less legal force – he said” MK “. – We are almost the only ones in the European region who so famously secured secondary own Constitution (Art. 15 of the basic law gives it the highest legal force, while recognizing the primacy of international agreements. – “MC”). Professor of School of Economics, Constitutional Court judge Tamara retired Morschakova called the decision “logical in the sense that it can withstand a certain direction of development – not self-isolation of Russia, namely the establishment of relations with the European institutions».
A lawyer Vadim Prokhorov told “MK” that real conflict between the Constitution and the decisions of the ECHR – “a very rare case.” For example, in 2005, the ECHR upheld the claim of the convicted for the murder of John Hirst and acknowledged that the UK authorities have violated the Convention on Human Rights, depriving it of the right to vote. Then, the Court ordered the UK to return all prisoners the right to vote. “If the decision was taken with regard to Russia, there would be something really conflict: the Constitution of the Russian Federation stated that the prisoners have no such right.” According to Prokhorov, in most cases, the ECHR may make decisions that differ from the federal law, not the Constitution. In the majority of cases we can say that he made the decision, at variance with the Law and not the Constitution. An example might be a solution in the case of Markin v Russia, issued in 2012.
The case originated in 2006, the complaint soldier who could not get leave to care for a child, because he is a man. Then went the views of European and Constitutional Courts. Last defended the position that the difference in relation to the military men and women in relation to the provision of leave to care for a child is justified by a special social role of mothers in the upbringing of children, the Strasbourg Court also acknowledged Markina victim of discrimination. “However, there is a question of conflict with federal law, not the Constitution,” – said the “MK” Prokhorov.
Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Sergei Mavrin, commenting on the decision, he said that it is not directly related to the Yukos case. However, do not need to be an expert to arrange the events on the time axis, in July last year, the ECHR award financial compensation to the shareholders of Yukos – 1.86 billion dollars, Russia in due time to the Council of Europe does not offer a payment plan to the former shareholders, immediately prompted the State Duma deputies in The Constitutional Court, “Russia’s further actions on the ECHR decision on compensation for former Yukos shareholders will be based on the position of the Constitutional Court”, – said the Russian Federation at the ECHR commissioner, Deputy Minister of Justice Giorgi Matyushkin. Then there is the decision of the COP on the supremacy of the Constitution over the decisions of the ECHR. “As the decision of the COP can be directly transferred to the Yukos case, I imagine little” – said the “MK” lawyer representing the part of the National Bolsheviks in the “process 39″ Dmitry Agranovskii. “Where a decision on Yukos is contrary to the Constitution, I do not know – said the” MK “lawyer Vadim Prokhorov. – Moreover, I do not know where it is contrary to federal law ».
No comments:
Post a Comment