-
Nov 9, 2020
-
Jan 15, 2020In free access for the first time
-
Apr 16, 2017Russian court practice in English
-
Jun 21, 2013“I propose to merge the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Commercial Court, for which it will be necessary to make amendments to the Constitution of Russia”
-
May 18, 2013"The legal positions formulated by the Presidium and Plenary Session of the Supreme Commercial Court, - they are not only a guidance how to act, but also drafts for future court decisions"
-
Feb 6, 2012“А certain element of “the law of precedent” will serve as a factor of incessant improvement of court”
-
Jul 25, 2014“Theory knows such kind of interpretation as an interpretation contra legem, when a court interprets a law contrary the latter’s literal meaning”
-
Jun 17, 2014“Let us say that we have a super-precedential law. I mean certain “traditions” in judges’ behaviour, certain attitude towards the authority of the superior court”. (Full version)
-
May 22, 2014“It is impossible not to touch upon recently observed attempts of a significant part of legal community to introduce into Russian law-creation practice the elements of the Anglo-Saxon law of precedent”
Subject area
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 22 March 2012 № 447-О-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of the citizen M.V.Lykosov against the violation of his constitutional rights by Articles 96 and 97 of the Federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation"
Legal issue: whether the contested rules (as recently amended) are in conformity with part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution, as long as they allow a citizen to bring a complaint to the Constitutional Court only against the violation of his constitutional rights and freedoms by a law which had been already applied to his case and on the condition that the consideration of this case by the court was finished?
Ratio decidendi: the Court refused to accept the complaint for consideration, because the admissibility criteria were not met. At the same time, the Court pointed out that the federal legislator has lawfully developed and specified part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by establishing in the new version of the provisions in question that the Constitutional Court, following the complaints of citizens may review the law which was actually applied in the respective case, while following the requests from courts it may review a law which is subject to application.
Dissenting opinion:
-
The aforesaid Article of the Constitution does not permit such specification, and the new version of the contested provisions, by depriving citizens of the opportunity to challenge the law which has not yet been applied in the case, but is only subject to application, means the retreat of the legislator from the level of legal protection previously achieved, and therefore contradicts the Constitution and earlier case law of the Constitutional Court.
(134.14 Kb)