The Constitutional Court did not review the punishment for participating in a rally

The Constitutional Court refused to review the fine to Muscovite Ivan Divilkovsky for participating in an uncoordinated rally. He drew attention to the fact that in Russian laws there is no mechanism for reviewing administrative cases after the decision of the ECtHR .jpg” alt=”The Constitutional Court did not review the punishment for participation in a rally” />

Decisions of Russian courts on fines for participation in uncoordinated rallies should not be canceled after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ) recognized these acts as a violation of the right to freedom of assembly. This follows from the decision of the Constitutional Court (CC) of Russia in the case of one of the participants in the 2014 protests, Muscovite Ivan Divilkovsky.

In May 2014, Divilkovsky was fined 10,000 rubles by the Tverskoy Court of Moscow. for participating in an unsanctioned rally. In September 2020, the ECtHR recognized that by doing so the Russian authorities had violated his (and 12 other applicants) right to “freedom of assembly and association.” The ECHR awarded him compensation in the amount of €5.1 thousand (about 440 thousand rubles), as well as €850 in favor of the representative.

After that, Divilkovskiy, referring to the decision of the ECHR dated September 8, 2020 in the case of “Zavyalova and others v. Russia”, appealed to the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction and to the Supreme Court of Russia. However, in February and August 2021, the complaints were denied. “Taking into account the actual circumstances of the applicant’s case, the judges concluded that the violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, indicated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in the case under consideration does not entail the need to review the contested judicial acts issued in relation to Divilkovskiy, and also does not is the basis for the conclusion that there is no imputed administrative offense in the act of Divilkovsky, — stated in the justification for the refusal on the website of the COP.

The court explained that, since Russia had ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and thereby accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court, the payment of compensation to the applicant “certainly” subject to execution. At the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that it is up to national authorities, and not the ECtHR, to resolve issues of interpretation and application of national legislation. “Accordingly, the question of the possibility of revising court decisions that have entered into legal force on such a circumstance as the establishment by the European Court of Human Rights of a violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms must be considered by the court in the context of the identified violations, based on the actual circumstances of a particular case.” ;,— specified in the Russian court.

“Kommersant” referring to Divilkovskiy's complaint, he reports that the applicant drew attention to the fact that in Russian legislation, in principle, there is no mechanism for reviewing court decisions in administrative cases in connection with such a ground as a violation of rights established by the ECtHR. He believes that this is wrong, since a democratic constitutional state should not put up with the issuance of illegal, unreasonable court decisions. In addition, the maintenance of such a decision violates the right to respect for human dignity, guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution, emphasized in the Muscovite's complaint.

At the same time, the refusal of the Constitutional Court states that the applicant has already received the compensation assigned to him by the ECHR, and the period during which he was considered subjected to administrative punishment has expired. In this regard, the court believes, there is no reason to believe that he continues to “experience the unfavorable consequences of the decision of the Tverskoy Court.”

ECHR— an international court that considers citizens' complaints about violations of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention; based in Strasbourg. Its jurisdiction extends to the states that are members of the Council of Europe, although a citizen of any country can become an applicant if he believes that his rights have been violated by the state— party to the European Convention. The condition for applying to the ECtHR— exhaustion of effective domestic remedies. For example, filing a complaint against Russia most often requires a local court decision that has entered into force no more than six months ago.

If the ECtHR finds a human rights violation, the respondent state is obliged to pay monetary compensation to the plaintiff, as well as to take individual measures (for example, to review the decision of the national court) or measures of a general nature (for example, to carry out reforms to prevent similar violations).

According to the decision of the Constitutional Court of July 2015, Russia may not comply with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights if they contradict the Constitution.

In December 2020, the Federation Council approved a package of laws that establish the priority of the Constitution in Russia over international agreements and decisions of interstate bodies. New draft laws were adopted in connection with amendments to the Russian Constitution. All-Russian voting on them took place from June 25 to July 1. According to the Central Election Commission, the amendments were supported by 77.92% of those who voted, opposed— 21.27%, vote turnout was 67.97%.

Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone else


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *