What Changes for the Constitutional Court with the New Russian Constitution?
Of the 206 amendments introduced to the Russian constitution and adopted on July 1, 2020, 24 deal directly with the Constitutional Court, its organization, functioning, and the role it plays in the political system. Compared to many other, these are also rather precise and detailed, ranging from the number of judges on the bench, their nomina-tion and dismissal, to the Court’s inner procedures, new locus standi limitations, and the primacy of the Constitution over Russia’s international obligations. Most changes only reproduce amendments brought to the secondary legislation over the last twenty years, and are therefore meant to preserve the status quo rather than change anything significantly. At the same time, a number of amendments aim at politicizing and instrumentalizing the Court for the president’s benefit, marking a significant departure from the previous institutional development.
The book containts articles written by European scholars about the place of socio-economic rights in the modern democracies. The introduction is written by Wiktor Osiatynski, who analyses the confusing concepts of socio-economic rights.
In the article its author is engaging in polemics with those alleging the incompatibility of a real competence of the Secretariat with its competences set up by the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The article argues that the existing model of dealing with applications not only does comply with the law in force, but is also the most reasonable from the point of view either of the guarantees of the applicant’s rights and lawful interests or of the organization of work of the Court itself.
The article contains analysis of the practice of the Russian Constitutional Court on protection of socio-economic rights.
Not only Russia but also other countries are affected by the globalization that threatens, metaphorically speaking, to sweep away not only inter- state frontiers but also states themselves. Transnational and international legal regulation makes state legal systems step back in a number of important fields: along with human rights law, one could also mentionius mercatoria, environmental law, and so on. Within some regional blocks such as the European Union (EU), state legal systems are retreating in many other directions, ceding priority to regional law. The CoE, the EU, and national governments strategically seek to establish their own sovereign interpretation of basic concepts in the legal domain. Furthermore, with regard to fundamental rights themselves, conflicts are inherent in their construction, with rights claims of one individual coming up against those made by another or by a collectivity. Given that the major task of high courts is to decide on the balance between competing rights claims, these courts are required to pay close attention to developments in other legal systems, measuring the future justification of their decisions in open discussion forums, one of which should be the ECtHR. These expectations toward the ECtHR largely shape the Russian attitude, incoherent and ambiguous as it might be. If reiterating that the Kremlin takes anti-Western stances in polemics with the Strasbourg Court, it should be understood that “anti-Western” in this sense does not aim at any particular cultural, historical, or religious background as is the case with anti-Western Islamist discourse. The Russian leadership rather considers itself a part of the European conservative powers that search to set back liberal values and to protect Europe from becoming a melting pot of heterogeneous cultures, religions, and civilizations and from thereby losing its “spiritual buckles.” From the aspect of legal philosophy, two key points are important to understand in this approach: that of human rights and that of sovereignty. The Russian exceptionalist understanding of these two key points largely foreshadows Russian international policy and its “living” constitutional order. The ideas set forth by Valery Zorkin are highly illustrative of this exceptionalism and can serve as a litmus paper for detecting the philosophical background of Russian policies toward the ECtHR.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/