COP asked to soften the terms of prosecutorial inspections NGOs – RBC

COP asked to soften the terms of prosecutorial inspections NGOs – RBC

The meeting of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Photo: RIA Novosti

The Constitutional Court recognized the right to check the Prosecutor General’s non-profit organizations, but to regulate the work of the Prosecutor General has verified. At the same time, the lack of a clear time frame, when the NGO must fulfill the requirements of auditors, the COP recognized the unconstitutional and ordered to amend the legislation. The applicants’ case COP ordered to reconsider.

The collective complaint with the Constitutional Court (CC) was fed public organization “Human Rights Center” Memorial “,” International Society “Memorial”, “Civic Assistance” and its leader Svetlana Gannushkina, and Association “Agora”, “human rights center Transbaikal” and Public Foundation “International Standard”. The applicants claimed to recognize the unconstitutional provisions of the law “On Prosecutor’s Office”, which establishes the right agency to conduct unscheduled inspections, but it is not regulated by the procedure itself. We are talking about Article 6 § 1, Article 21 paragraph 2 and Article 22 of the law claim 1. A public hearing on this matter was held on January 22.

By themselves the right to check the Prosecutor General’s Office NGO COP recognized the constitutional, but ordered the Prosecutor General’s Office when checking NGOs observe five points. According to the court, the prosecutor’s conduct checks should be motivated and pre-prosecution should inform NGOs about the upcoming inspection, and after it – on the findings. The second paragraph states that the inspectors do not have the right to demand from the NGO documents that she is not required to have, as well as publicly available information, or already in the possession of public bodies. Also check can not be repeated for the same reasons (unless it is to eliminate the previously identified violations). Representatives of other regulatory bodies have the right to be involved in checking only for the implementation of the subsidiary (expert-analytical) functions, according to the decision. COP left for NGOs the right to appeal the court decision and t he actions of the prosecutor’s office.

According to the chairman of the COP Valery Zorkin, Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice do not duplicate each other’s functions – both agencies have the right to inspect NGOs. However, according to the court, “the controversial provisions of the law on the Prosecutor did not establish a clear time frame and allows you to check to determine deadlines of their claims.” Thus, according to the decision of the court, these points of law “confront NGOs objectively impossible tasks, which in the absence of special statutory criteria can not be tested on the merits in court.” Therefore, the court recognized this gap in the law contrary to the Constitution and to make changes to legislation enacted inspectors rely on the law “On protection of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs in the implementation of state control (supervision) and municipal control.” In addition, the COP decided that the applicant s ‘case – “Memorial”, “Agora”, “Civic Assistance” and others – are subject to revision.

COP decision – a conceptual change in the prosecutors’ work, said the lawyer association “Agora” Ramil Ahmetgaliev, who represented her in court. “COP answered all our questions and responded positively. Never procedure prosecutorial investigation was not as strictly regulated. It is important that the decision to exclude the COP unmotivated scheduled and unscheduled checks without warning, as the prosecutor’s office no longer be able to demand documents, which the organization is not required to have by law, “- said the lawyer.

Ahmetgaliev notes the decision of the COP does not make life easier only NGOs, but also business, who also suffered from unreasonable prosecutorial investigation. “But the court ruling is only the first step, the second – how it will be implemented. Ministry of Justice should develop appropriate amendments to the legislation, and while the prosecution will have to work on the basis of the decision “, – concluded the lawyer.