IJ №3 (19) 2016
Collisions and Illusions amid the Convention and the Constitution: What Does Underlie the Russian Constitutional Court’s Objection to the European Court of Human Rights?

Abstract 
In its Judgment of April 19, 2016 No.12-P the Russian Constitutional Court puts forward and justifies the  “objection” towards the European Court of Human Rights relying on certain conditions of the admissibility of the ECtHR’s judgments and interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The present article reflects the results of the  research on the issue oo what constitutes the basis of this “objection”. It is argued in the article that the Constitutional Court’s line of arguments creates only an illusion of evaluating the possibility of interpretation of the Article 32(3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in consistency with the ECtHR’s approach. As well it illustrates that the Constitutional Court’s use of  the factor of circumstances and conditions of Russia’s accession to the European Convention has certain deficiencies in reasoning from the standpoint of law and facts. Additionally, the article identifies the problems on the Constitutional Court approach to the European consensus concept. On the basis of the analysis of the content of the “objection” towards the ECtHR, the author makes a conclusion that it lacks uncertainty on  the criteria of the ECtHR’s case-law implementation in the context of the Russian legal system.

About the author
Dmitry Krasikov – Candidate of Legal Science; Associate Professor, Head of European and Comparative Law Department, Saratov State Law Academy.

Citation
Krasikov D. (2016) Konventsionno-konstitutsionnуe kollizii i illyuzii: chto lezhit v osnove vozrazheniya Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossii v adres Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka? [Collisions and illusions amid the Convention and the Constitution: what does underlie the Russian Constitutional Court’s objection to the European Court of Human Rights?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.101–117. (In Russian).

References:

Betlem G. (2002) The Doctrine of Consistent Interpretation – Managing Legal Uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol.22, no.3, pp.397–418.

Bjorge E. (2014) The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blankenagel A., Levin I. (2015) V printsipe nel’zya, no mozhno!.. Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii i delo ob obyazatel’nosti resheniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [In Principle, No… but Yes, it is possible! The Russian Constitutional Court and the binding power of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.5, pp.152–162. (In Russian).

Bogush G.I., Degtyaryov K.I., Esakov G.A., Timofeyev M.T. (2016) Pis’­mennye soobrazheniya po sushchestvu dela, kasayushchegosya zaprosa Ministerstva Yustitsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii o razreshenii voprosa o vozmozhnosti ispolneniya Postanovleniya Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka on 4 iyulya 2013 goda po zhalobam N 311157/04 i 15162/05 Anchugov i Gladkov protiv Rossiyskoy Federatsii[Reflections on the merits of the Case Concerning the Request of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation on the Issue of Possibility of Implementation of the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2013 on the Applications nos.311157/04 and 15162/05 “Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russian Federation”]. Available at: http://chr-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Anchugov-and-Gladkov-Amicus-Brief.pdf (accessed 01.09.2016). (In Russian).

Crootof R. (2011) Judicious Influence: Non-Self-Executing Treaties and the “Charming Betsy” Canon. The Yale Law Journal, vol.120, no.7, pp.1784–1819.

D’Amato A. (2001) There is No Norm of Intervention or Non-Intervention in International Law: Comments. International Legal Theory, vol.7, no.1, pp.33–40.

Dolzhikov A.V. (2013) “Gordost’ i predubezhdenie”: sorazmernost’ polnogo konstitutsionnogo zapreta zaklyuchyonnym golosovat’ v Rossii: Posta­novlenie Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 4 iulya 2013 goda [“Pride and Prejudice”: Proportionality of the Constitutional Ban on Prisoners’ Voting in Russia. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2013]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.11–31. (In Russian).

Dzehtsiarou K. (2009) European Consensus: A Way of Reasoning: UCD Working Papers in Law, Criminology & Socio-Legal Studies. Research Paper No.11/2009. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1411063 (accessed 26.08.2016).

Institut prava i publichnoy politiki. (2016) Zaklyuchenie o tolkovanii stat’i 32 (chast’ 3) Konstitutsii Rossiyskoy Federatsii dlya tseley opredeleniya vozmozhnosti ispolneniya postanovleniya Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 4 iyulya 2013 goda po delu Anchugov i Gladkov protiv Rossiyskoy Federatsii[Amicus curiae briefing on interpretation of Article 32(3) of the Russian Constitution for the Purposes of Determining the Possibility of Implementation of the 4 July 2013 Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia]. Available at: http://ilpp.ru/netcat_files/userfiles/Litigation_Treinings/2016%20Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief%20(Anchugov%20i%20Gladkov).pdf (accessed 01.09.2016). (In Russian).

Lapaeva V.V. (2016) Vozmozhnosti razvitiya chelovekotsentristskogo potentsiala Konstitutsii RF (na primere tolkovaniya ch.3 st.32) [Possibilities for Development of the Human-Centric Potential of the Russian Constitution (on the Example of Interpretation of Art.32, Part.3)]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Pravovedeniye, no.1, pp.110–125. (In Russian).

Lipkina N.N. (2016) Printsip evropeyskogo konsensusa v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [The Principle of European Consensus in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights]. Pravovaya politika i pravovaya zhizn’, no.1, pp.49–55. (In Russian).

Lukashuk I.I. (2008) Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Obshchaya chast’ [International Law. General Part], Moscow: Volters Kluver. (In Russian).

Nollkaemper A. (2011) National Courts and the International Rule of Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Senden H. (2011) Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in a Multilevel Legal System: An Analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, Cambridge; Portland: Intersentia.

Shelton D. (ed.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shen J. (2001) The Non-Intervention Principle and Humanitarian Interventions under International Law. International Legal Theory, vol.7, no.1, pp.1–32.

Tzevelekos V., Dzehtsiarou K. (2016) International Custom Making and the ECtHR’s European Consensus Method of Interpretation. European Yearbook on Human Rights, vol.16, pp.313–344.

Vaypan G. (2016) Trudno byt’ bogom: Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii i ego pervoe delo o vozmozhnosti ispolneniya postanovleniya Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Hard to Be a God: the Russian Constitutional Court and its First Case on Enforceability of a Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.4, pp.107–124. (In Russian).

Wildhaber L., Hjartarson A., Donnelly S. (2013) No Consensus on Consensus?: The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Journal, vol.33, no.7–12, pp.248–263.

Issue articles