Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:08:11.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia

Review products

Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia, Judgment No. 12-П/2016. Athttp://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision230222.pdf. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, April 19, 2016.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2017

A.Kh. Abashidze ,
M.V. Ilyashevich  and
A.M. Solntsev
A.Kh. Abashidze
Affiliation:
RUDN University
M.V. Ilyashevich
Affiliation:
RUDN University
A.M. Solntsev
Affiliation:
RUDN University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On April 19, 2016, in The Case Concerning the Resolution of the Question of the Possibility to Execute in Accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2013 in the Case of Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia in Connection with the Request of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (Anchugov & Gladkov (Russ.)), the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (Constitutional Court) held that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are binding on Russian courts, in accordance with Article 15(4) of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stressed the necessity of ensuring a reasonable balance between the obligation to implement ECtHR judgments and respect for the fundamental principles of the Russian Federation's constitutional system. The Constitutional Court found that because the ECtHR judgment in question implicitly conflicted with provisions of the Russian Constitution, Russian courts are not obliged to comply with the judgment regarding issues that remain in conflict; however, other means are available to the Russian legislature to give effect to the judgment. While the decision marks an important development in Russia's relationship with the European system of human rights, it is not inconsistent with the approach taken by a substantial number of European domestic courts in holding that treaty obligations to enforce decisions of international courts cannot justify violating domestic constitutional norms.

Keywords

Constitutional Court of the Russian Federationinternational human rightsenforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rightsconflict between international obligations and domestic constitutional lawsubsidiarityrestrictions on voting rights
Type
International Decisions: Edited by David P. Stewart
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 461 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ruling of the Russian Federation Constitutional Court of Apr. 19, 2016, No. 12-П/2016, available (in Russian) at http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision230222.pdf, available (in English) at http://www.ksrf.ru/en/Decision/Judgments/Documents/2016_April_19_12-P.pdf. References to specific statements in the decision are to the latter. Article 15(4) of the 1993 Russian Constitution states that “[u]niversally recognized principles and norms of international law as well as international agreements of the Russian Federation should be an integral part of its legal system. If an international agreement of the Russian Federation establishes rules, which differ from those stipulated by law, then the rules of the international agreement shall be applied.” Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Konst. RF] [Constitution of the Russian Federation] (1993), Art. 15(4) [hereinafter Russian Constitution], available (in English) at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Russia_2008.pdf.

2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. On May 5, 1998, the Russian Federation also ratified Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as well as others not relevant to this discussion.

3 Id., Art. 46(1).

4 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 5, On the Application by the Courts of General Jurisdiction of Universally Recognized Principles and Norms of International Law and International Treaties of the Russian Federation, Oct. 10, 2003, para. 11, available (in Russian) at https://rg.ru/2003/12/02/pravo-doc.html.

5 Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 21, On the Application by the Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950 and the Protocols Thereto, June 27, 2013, paras. 2–3, available (in Russian) at https://rg.ru/2013/07/05/konvencia-dok.html.

6 See European Court of Human Rights, Analysis of Statistics 2016, at 111, table 2, at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2016_ENG.pdf.

7 Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russian Federation, App. Nos. 11157/04 & 15162/05, First Section, Final Judgment (Sept. 12, 2013), at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-122260 [hereinafter Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia].

8 Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights, ETS 9 (entered into force May 18, 1954), provides that “[t]he High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”

9 Russian Constitution, supra note 1, Art. 32(3).

10 See Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia, supra note 7, paras. 94–95.

11 Id., para. 103.

12 Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), 2005-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 187, para. 82, at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int [hereinafter Hirst v. U.K.].

13 See Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia, supra note 7, para. 105.

14 Id., para. 110.

15 Id., para. 111.

16 Federal Constitutional Law, On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Dec. 14, 2015, available (in Russian) at http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/Info/LegalBases/FCL/Pages/default.aspx.

17 Citing Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, CCPR General Comment No. 25: Article 25 (Participation in Public Affairs and the Right to Vote), The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right of Equal Access to Public Service, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, para. 14 (adopted July 12, 1996), available at http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/19154?download=true.

18 Along with Great Britain and Russia, provisions depriving all prisoners of active voting rights by court sentence are contained in the legislation of such Council of Europe member states as Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, and Hungary.

19 Hirst v. U.K., supra note 12.

20 See Greens & M.T. v. United Kingdom, 2010-VI (extracts) 57 (Nov. 23), at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101853. The “pilot judgment” procedure was adopted in 2011 via Rule of Court 61. See European Court of Human Rights Press Unit, Pilot Judgments Factsheet (June 2017), at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Pilot_judgments_ENG.pdf.

21 Firth v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 47784/09 et al., Fourth Section, Judgment (Aug. 12, 2014), at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-146101; McHugh v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 51987/08 et al., Fourth Section, Judgment (Feb. 10, 2015), at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-151005; Millbank v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 44473/14 et al., First Section, Judgment (June 30, 2016), at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-163919.