About site   Contacts   Useful Links   Search  
Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the RF
KAZAN CENTER
OF FEDERALISM
AND PUBLIC
POLICY
/ Help to researcher / Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the RF / Definition of April 19, 2001 return to homepage
Definition of April 19, 2001
 
 
 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Extract from the DEFINITION OF APRIL 19 2001

ACCORDING TO THE PETITION OF THE PLENIPOTENTIARY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN VOLGA FEDERAL DISTRICT ABOUT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF DEFINITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OF JUNE 27, 2000 ON THE INQUIRY OF GROUP OF DEPUTIES OF THE STATE DUMA ABOUT CONFORMITY BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ADYGEJA, THE REPUBLIC OF BASHKORTOSTAN, THE REPUBLIC OF INGUSHETIA, THE REPUBLIC OF KOMI, THE REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN OSSETIA-ALANIYA AND THE REPUBLIC OF TATARSTAN.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION HAS ESTABLISHED:

1. The plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Volga Federal District applied to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation according to the article 83 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with the petition for an official explanation of the official definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June, 27,2000 92 on the inquiry of the group of deputies of the State Duma about conformity of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and some provisions of the constitutions of the Republic of Adygeja, the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Republic of Komi, the Republic of Northern Ossetia - Alaniya and the Republic of Tatarstan.

The petition indicates that several provisions of the constitutions of republics within the Russian Federation recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as forfeited and not applicable as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation continue to operate: the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan (edition of the Law of the Republic of Bashkortostan of November 3, 2000) and the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan (edition of the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan of December 19, 2000) contain some norms, establishing the sovereignty (the state sovereignty) of the republic and vested all supreme (i.e. Supreme) power on its territory in the republic. Moreover, according to the applicant some constituent subjects of the Russian Federation do not recognize an obligation, established by the second part of article 87 of the Federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" to exclude provisions from the normative-legal system, recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as contradicting to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In this connection, the plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Volga Federal District asks to explain:

Whether there is a necessity to have any other judgment (particularly the judgment of general jurisdiction court) in addition to the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, once again confirming the existence of norms in the legislation of constituent subject of the Russian Federation, which are not the subject to application as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation; whether it is possible to apply measures of responsibility specified in the Federal law of October, 6, 1999 "On general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation" (edition of July 29, 2000) to supreme officials, legislative (representative) and executive state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation if they do not take measures to cancel norms in the constitutions of republics within the Russian Federation, recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as forfeited and not applicable; and what is the procedure of taking legal actions against such bodies and officials; what moment starts their obligation for the execution of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and what moment starts the procedure of taking legal actions against them for not fulfillment of such obligation.

2. With regard to the meaning of article 83 of the Federal constitutional law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the official explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation shall be provided by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation within the limits of content of the explained decision and this explanation shall not be a simple reproduction of the decision, no less than reproduction of legislation provision, i.e. the petition shall not be the subject to consideration in procedure of public session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation if the questions put in it doesnt not require any additional interpretation of the decision on points of fact. Such legal position was expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in Definition of February 8,2001 according to the petition of the Chairman of the Government of the Republic of Karelia for an explanation of Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 16,1998 on case about interpretation of some provisions of articles 125, 126 and 127 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Decision of April 11,2000 on case about inspection of constitutionality of some provisions of item 2 of article 1, item 1 of article 21 and item 3 of article 22 of the Federal law "About Office of Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation".

Definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 27,2000 # 92-O, which explanation is required by the applicant, confirmed that several provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Adygeja, the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Constitution of the Republic of Ingushetia, the Constitution of the Republic of Komi, the Constitution of Republic of Northern Ossetia - Alaniya and the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan are in fact the same, as provisions recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the decision of March 13,1992 on case about inspection of constitutionality of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Tatar SSR of August 30,1990, the Law of Tatar SSR of April 18,1991 "On amendments and alterations of the Constitution (Organic Law) of Tatar SSR", the Law of Tatar SSR of November 29,1991 "On referendum in Tatar SSR", Decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Tatarstan of February 21,1992 "On conducting a referendum in the Republic of Tatarstan concerning the state status of the Republic of Tatarstan", in the decision of January 9, 1998 on case about inspection of constitutionality of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation and in the decision of June 7, 2000 on case about inspection of constitutionality of some provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Altai and the Federal law "On general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation". As specified in Definition, with regard to the meaning of article 125, (item "" of part 2 and part 6) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its concretizing provisions of item 3 of part 1 of article 43, the second and third parts of article 79, articles 85 and 87 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" in their interrelations, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has come to conclusion, that petition addressed the same normative provisions, earlier recognized by the Court as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and by its decision in the form of definition hereby confirms, that these provisions shall also contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation and shall not be valid.

For this reason and on the basis of articles 15 (part 1, 2 and 3), 72 (item "" of part 1), 76 and 125 (part 6) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as article 6 of item 3 of first part of article 43, first and fourth parts of article 71, the first, second and third clause parts of article 79 and the second part of article 87 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic Adygeja, the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Constitution of the Republic of Ingushetia, the Constitution of the Republic of Komi, the Constitution of the Republic of Northern Ossetia - Alaniya and the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan, disputed in the inquiry of the group of deputies of the State Duma as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation were recognized as forfeited and not applicable by courts, other bodies and officials.

These provisions, including provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan and the Constitution of the Republic of Tatarstan, shall be forfeited directly on the basis of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, without any special or cancellation decisions of state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation, and therefore, shall not be a component of legal system of the Russian Federation (and legal system of the appropriate subject of the Russian Federation as its constituent), that follows from articles 10, 118, 125 (item "" of part 2 and part 6) and article 128 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and subitem "" of item 1 of first part of article 3 and article 6 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation".

3. In pursuance of the requirements of first part of article 79, articles 80 and 87 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" the legislative (representative) and executive bodies of constituent subject of the Russian Federation, its supreme official, guaranteeing strict execution of the appropriate decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in exact conformity with its meaning, shall be obliged to avoid realization of provision recognized as unconstitutional and thereof lost validity, and similar provisions of other normative legal acts, their use in practice of state building of constituent subject of the Russian Federation and its relations with the Russian Federation, shall cancel the provisions of other statutory acts based on norms recognized as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation, forfeited and not subject to application.

With regard to the meaning of article 125 (item "" part 2 and part 6) in interrelation with articles 4 (parts 1 and 2), 5 (parts 3 and 4) and 71 (item "") of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and their concretizing instructions in the first part of article 79, articles 80 and 87 of the Federal constitutional laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", all normative provisions similar to that norm, which contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation shall be recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as forfeited and not applicable, shall not be also applied and shall be the subject for exclusion from legal systems of all constituent subjects of the Russian Federation as components of legal system of the Russian Federation. Therefore, after publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation their legislative (representative) and executive bodies, as well as supreme officials shall be obliged to cancel all similar provisions contained in their normative legal acts.

Legislative (representative) and executive state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation, their supreme officials shall have no right to adopt any acts and carry out any activity (inactivity) directed to preservation of the specified provisions in legal system, in legal regulation and legal application. As it follows from articles 10, 118 and 125 (part 6) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and concretizing their provisions articles 6, 79 and 81 of the Federal constitutional laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation such acts and activity (inactivity) violate the requirements of legally binding decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and their strict execution, as well as the prohibition to overcome the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation by repeated adoption of unconstitutional act.

4. Being guided by the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, courts of the general jurisdiction under the initiative of authorized persons shall have the right to recognize invalidity of provisions of constitutions, charters, laws of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation, i.e. to confirm loss of their legal validity, if they contain the same norms, which are recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation, forfeited and not applicable (the decision from April 11, 2000 on case about inspection of constitutionality of some provisions of item 2 of article 1, item 1 of article 21 and item 3 of article 22 of the Federal law "About Office of Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation"; definition of February 8,2001 according to the petition of the Chairman of the Government of Republic Karelia), though such acknowledgement is not an obligatory element of the mechanism of execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

In case of recognition of invalidity of the rule of law by the decision of court of general jurisdiction, based on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, its cancellation shall not require the adoption of the special act by the appropriate state body of constituent subject of the Russian Federation. It, however, does not exclude the right of authorized bodies of constituent subject of the Russian Federation to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the basis of article 85 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" in case of disagreement with the decision of court of the general jurisdiction, since conflicting issues connected to the constitutional status of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation shall be finally resolved by means of the constitutional legal proceedings (articles 118 and 125 of the Constitutions of the Russian Federation).

5. Non-execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation by state bodies and officials of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation shall establish, in particular, the basis for application of measures of criminal liability for non-execution of judicial act (article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and according to the Federal law "On general principles of the organization of legislative (representative) and executive state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation" for warning the respective state body (official) of constituent subject of the Russian Federation by the President of the Russian Federation and possible pre-term termination of their powers as the form of constitutional-legal responsibility, since the existence of constitutional presumption for federal legislation. Therefore, taking into account that non-execution of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation objectively creates obstacles for the supremacy and direct action of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in all territory of the Russian Federation, for the realization of basis for constitutional building and powers of federal bodies established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, there shall be no need for additional or repeated decision for warning of the President of the Russian Federation, moreover according to first and second parts of article 79 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation shall be final, shall not be subject to the appeal, act directly and shall not require acknowledgement of other bodies and officials, i.e., therefore, acknowledgement of other courts.

At the same time, in case of absence of special judgment directly acknowledging illegality of provisions of the legislation of constituent subject of the Russian Federation, similar to earlier recognized by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as contradicted the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the principle of direct action of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and provisions of second part of article 87 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" shall oblige the state bodies of constituent subjects of the Russian Federation to reveal in their legislation provisions similar to that, recognized unconstitutional and to cancel them when due hereunder.

Non-execution of this duty shall also cause the constitutionally-legal responsibility in the form of the pre-term termination of powers, the procedure of which shall be launched by warning of the President of the Russian Federation.

Proceeding from above stated and being guided by the first part of article 79 and article 83 of the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

HAS DEFINED:

1. Since issues of plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in Volga Federal District are settled directly in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in the Federal constitutional law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", concretizing provisions of the Constitution, as well as in legal norms of other federal laws, consideration of his petition according the procedure of public session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation should not be required.


 
In this section
Site sections
Search
 
Registration
:    
:
 
 

  • [ ]
  • News | Projects | Publications | Employees | Forum | Actions | Help to researcher | Articles about modern federalism
    2001, 2002, 2009 Kazan Center of Federalism and Public Policy. All rights reserved, more ... Kazan, Kremlin, entrance 5. Tel/fax +7 (843) 2925043, federalism@kazanfed.ru