?
Конституционные стандарты парламентских процедур в Российской Федерации как демократическом правовом государстве. Автореферат диссертации на соискание ученой степени доктора юридических наук
The given paper examines the issues of what a truly constitutional parliamentary procedure is, and what features and characteristics it should possess. In the author's opinion, this should be a parliamentary procedure based on the principles of democracy, ideological and political diversity (decisions are only made by the majority with respect for the rights and consideration of the opinion of the parliamentary opposition), with observance of the rights and guarantees of participants in the parliamentary process, as well as a clear formal and logical transparency of the parliamentary procedure. These are, in fact, the key constitutional standards of parliamentary procedures in Russia.
The dissertation suggests the theoretical comprehension of parliamentary procedure and the parliamentary process, each successive parliamentary procedure is analysed, and classified.
First of all this concerns the jurisdictional powers of the parliament, including the procedures for premature powers termination of deputies of the State Duma and senators of the Russian Federation, impeachment of the President of the Russian Federation, premature powers termination of heads and judges of high courts. The author concludes that, when considering these issues, the parliament must respect fair trial guarantees and voting on them should be held exclusively by secret ballot, possibly with the establishment of a qualified number of votes.
Regarding the legislative process, based on the established international experience, a quite innovative, still well-grounded proposal to shift the procedure of the second reading to the committee level exclusively is suggested.
In addition, it is proposed to establish a normative separation of the request of a deputy (senator) and the appeal of a deputy (senator). A deputy request is proposed as a form of parliamentary request, which can be sent on behalf of the Chamber of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and respectively, by a parliamentary fraction or a certain group of deputies/senators in case they account for a quarter of the total number.
There are also suggestions about returning the possibility to conduct the process of parliamentary investigation separately to each chamber, as well as the parliamentary opposition being eligible to really influence the initiation of such a process. The author proposes to include the conclusions of the Parliamentary Investigation Commission (if approved) in the list of circumstances that do not require averment in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, The Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, The Code of Administrative Procedure of the Russian Federation.
In total, there are 15 conclusions made in the work, and, accordingly, 15 provisions submitted to defense.
