The genre of the present article can be classified as a commentary on the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, devoted to an identical range of issues. Namely, such issues are the interpretation of the concepts of “family”, “marriage”, as well as the concepts of “possessions”, “property” used in the formulation of basic human rights. While in the first case we are talking about the so-called evolving rights, in the second case – about traditional rights: as a consequence, the approaches to the interpretation of these concepts are expectedly different. The main hypothesis is that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as the European Court of Human Rights, along with tools such as the evolving interpretation (the doctrine of the “living Constitution”) and others, uses the autonomous (constitutional) interpretation. The purpose of this interpretation is to identify the real meaning of the norms and institutions of the European Convention (Russian Constitution), which does not coincide with the meaning that was attributed to them by national legal systems (norms of ordinary legislation). Another hypothesis is that the fundamental differences between the approaches of the two high jurisdictions in this aspect do not happen often. Thus, the author proves that under certain circumstances the objects of unauthorized construction are considered by both courts as the “property” of a person, which entails the endowment of such a person with certain rights and guarantees regarding the fate of these objects. Also, relations of same-sex couples can be viewed through the prism of the right to respect for private (personal) life, despite the fact that protecting them through the prism of the right to respect for family life (right to marry) is faced with significant difficulties. On the contrary, even with a coincident assessment of certain subjective rights as being protected by the norms of constitutional or international law, there are discrepancies in assessing whether the limitations of such rights (measures to implement positive obligations of the state) are compatible with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the European Convention.
About the author:
Pavel Blokhin – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Advisor to the Judge of the Russian Constitutional Court, Senior Lecturer, Higher School of Economics, St. Petersburg, Russia
Blokhin P. (2019) “Vavilonskoe stolpotvorenie”: kommentariy k praktike avtonomnogo tolkovaniya norm Evropeyskoy Konventsii i rossiyskoy Konstitutsii [“Tower of Babel”: a comment to the practice of autonomous interpretation of the provisions of the European Convention and the Russian Constitution]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 106–120. (In Russian).
Bjorge E. (2015) Domestic Application of the ECHR: Courts as Faithful Trustees, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blokhin P. (2019) Avtonomnoe tolkovanie ponyatiy v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka i Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF: sravnitel’noe issledovanie [Autonomous Interpretation of Concepts in the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: a Comparative Study]. Zakon, no. 6, pp. 61–76. (In Russian).
Chueva D.I. (2018) Odnopolye braki v SSHA i Rossii: podkhody k regulirovaniyu skvoz’ prizmu sudebnogo tolkovaniya [Same-Sex Marriages in the US and Russia: Regulatory Approaches through the Judiciary]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no. 3, pp. 92–102. (In Russian).
Kovler A.I. (2019) Evropeyskaya konventsiya v mezhdunarodnoy sisteme zashchity prav cheloveka [European Convention in the International System for the Protection of Human Rights], Moscow: Institut zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel’stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Norma, INFRA-M. (In Russian).
Krasnov M.A. (2013) Nekotorye aspekty problemy ogranicheniya konstitutsionnykh prav (na primere ekonomicheskikh prav) [Some Aspects of the Problem of Limiting Constitutional Rights (on the Example of Economic Rights)]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 82–93. (In Russian).
Letsas G. (2004) The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How To Interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 279–305.
Lukashevich V.A. (2016) V zashchitu «evropeyskoy sem’i»: teoriya avtonomnykh ponyatiy i tolkovanie stat’i 8 Evropeyskim sudom po pravam cheloveka [In Defense of the “European Family”: Theory of Autonomous Concepts and Interpretation of Article 8 by the European Court of Human Rights]. In: M.E. Glazkova, S.A. Gracheva, T.A. Nikolaeva (eds.) Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka [Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights], part 2, Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Morshchakova T.G. (2019) Primenenie mezhdunarodnogo prava v konstitutsionnom pravosudii: itogi i perspektivy [Application of International Law in Constitutional Justice: Results and Prospects]. Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie: Vestnik Konferentsii organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya stran molodoy demokratii, 2001–2002, no. 4 (14) – 1 (15), pp. 117–118. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2007) Vosstanovlenie Vavilonskoy bashni: Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka i mnogoobrazie pravovykh kul’tur [Restoration of the Tower of Babel: European Court of Human Rights and the Diversity of Legal Cultures]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 71–79. (In Russian).
Trifonova T.N. (2019) Praktika Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka po rassmotreniyu del o samovol’nykh postroykakh [European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Unauthorized Buildings]. Sud’ya, no. 3, pp. 55–60. (In Russian).
Zor’kin V.D. (2006) Integratsiya evropeyskogo konstitutsionnogo prostranstva: vyzovy i otvety [Integration of the European Constitutional Space: Challenges and Answers]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no. 12, pp. 14–23. (In Russian).
Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8
+7 (495) 608-69-59
+7 (495) 608-66-35