Translated material
Contrary to protocol
State Duma deputies have quarreled Russia with Europe
Russia has refused to modernize the work of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). This happened thanks to the decision of the State Duma adopted yesterday - deputies did not ratify the 14th Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, long ago adopted and ratified by all other member states of the Council of Europe (CoE). According to the majority of deputies, the new rules of the ECHR regulations contradict the fundamentals of the convention, violate the human rights established by it, and may also lead to a discriminatory position for Russia in comparison with other European countries.The State Duma, therefore, for the first time in the history of its existence, refused to ratify the international treaty proposed to it , which had previously been signed by Russia. Moreover, the deputies, contrary to custom, even went against President Putin, who twice introduced a bill on the ratification of the 14th Protocol for their consideration.
The principled position of the State Duma nullified all the efforts of Europeans to improve the work of the ECHR. The protocol can come into force only if it is ratified by all member countries of the Council of Europe, and according to the law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation,” a bill on ratification can be submitted to parliament only once. And if the deputies refuse, there will be no second chance for its adoption.
The 14th Protocol, which should become an integral part of the convention, was born as a result of many years of work by the member states of the Council of Europe. The document began to be developed because the ECHR began to literally choke in the flow of complaints, increasing from year to year. As a result, the time frame for considering cases was extended. Thus, from the moment a complaint is received by the ECHR until a decision or ruling is made, on average, four years pass. Some categories of cases can gather dust on the Court's shelves for 8-10 years. But the most common violation for which the ECHR punishes European states is precisely the too long consideration of cases by national courts.
But different states had different visions of what measures should be taken. Thus, Switzerland and France proposed expanding the number of judges from those countries from which the largest number of complaints are received. But Russia and Austria opposed it, believing that this could lead to a violation of the principle of objectivity. As a result, a compromise decision was made to introduce a rule on the impossibility of early re-election of judges after their appointment. This was explained, among other things, by the fact that an ECHR judge must be independent of the state that elected him, and in the process of his work he somehow spoils relations with the authorities. In addition, the term of office of judges was increased - from 6 to 9 years, which, among other things, did not please Russian parliamentarians.
But the most serious disputes between Russia and the rest of the Council of Europe were caused by other innovations. In particular, Russian international relations experts considered the right of an ECHR judge to single-handedly decide on the admissibility of a complaint, that is, whether it contains a violation of human rights, to be ambiguous. Now this issue is being resolved collectively. Thus, if the judge considers the complaint inadmissible, then it will never be considered by the ECHR, and it is no longer possible to appeal such a decision.
It was on this issue that Dmitry Eremin, a member of the Duma Committee on Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Procedural Legislation, spoke yesterday. “The decision to initiate legal proceedings is one of the most important elements of the right to judicial protection,” he said. “It is at this stage that the likelihood of a judicial error is high, which can be reduced by making an appropriate decision by a collegial composition of the court.” In addition, the new protocol states that “while sitting alone on a case, a judge has no right to consider any complaint filed against the high contracting party from which that judge was elected.” This circumstance, in the opinion of our experts, contradicts the principle of the ECHR, according to which the participation of a judge from the state against which the complaint is made is mandatory in the proceedings of each case. And now the question of the admissibility of Russian complaints can be left to, say, a judge from Georgia, and, conversely, a judge from Russia, for example, will single-handedly decide the fate of Ukrainian or Moldovan complaints, and a judge from Armenia will decide the fate of Azerbaijani ones.
In some categories of cases, however, the decision on the admissibility of complaints under the new concept can be made by so-called ECHR committees consisting of three judges. But they only have the right, but not the obligation, to involve a judge from the state of which the applicant is a citizen in the consideration of the complaint.
An innovation of the 14th Protocol was the possibility of refusing to satisfy a complaint due to the “insignificance” of the damage suffered. Thus, some experts believe that the ECHR may deny the grandmother her right to indexation of her pension, but it will come to the defense of another disgraced oligarch.
A serious obstacle to the adoption of the protocol was the strengthening of the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the ECHR in matters of monitoring the implementation of court decisions. In particular, if “the Committee of Ministers considers that a high contracting party refuses to comply with the final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may refer to the court the question whether that party has violated its obligation.” This provision would be especially painful for Russia in connection with the already well-known case “Ilascu and others v. Russia and Moldova”, in which the ECHR, back in 2004, decided not only to pay compensation for their illegal conviction in Transnistria (this point was fulfilled by the Russian authorities ), but also obliged Russia to take “measures for their release.” This, in turn, in the current situation would mean for Russia interference in the internal affairs of Moldova and is therefore impossible. However, in early December, Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis said in connection with this case that “if the Russian Federation intends to care about the authority of the ECHR and its international reputation, it must comply with the court’s order before the overly delayed release of the applicants, which will deprive the Russian authorities opportunity to do it ourselves." This very statement by Mr. Davis, as our sources in the presidential administration believe, is what turned the deputies against the 14th Protocol.
Russia was also unhappy that a provision was made to the convention that the European Union could also join it. Thus, 25 European states would actually re-enter it and would receive one more vote in the Council of Europe and one more judge in the ECHR. On the other hand, the CIS could never become a party to the convention for the simple reason that not all of its participants are part of Europe.
Nevertheless, in May of this year, Russia signed the protocol, and the law on its ratification was submitted by the president to the State Duma in the fall. Yesterday, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Grigory Karasin spent a long time convincing deputies of the need to make this decision. He noted that the development of the protocol was a compromise between all CE countries and it “is only an integral part of a package of measures aimed at improving the work of the court.” According to him, among these measures proposed by the Russian side, providing the applicant with the opportunity to resolve the dispute in an alternative way, as well as transferring to the national level the possibility of determining the amount of compensation for citizens who won cases in the ECHR. “If Russia refuses to ratify the document, Russia will find itself in a politically vulnerable position,” Mr. Karasin said, but he was unable to convince the deputies.
However, not all deputies are inclined to adhere to this opinion. “I am surprised by this position of the State Duma,” Valery Grebennikov, first deputy head of the committee on civil, criminal, arbitration and procedural legislation, told Vremya Novostey yesterday. - Russia at one time took upon itself the obligation to promote the improvement of the Council of Europe, but now it has become a brake on this process. We missed an important step towards bringing European countries closer together. It’s a shame that we have lost prestige and respect, and this after Russia became a prominent member of the Council of Europe, and even chaired the Committee of Ministers from May to November.”
True, experts believe that not everything is so scary yet and, apart from the loss of prestige, Russia does not particularly risk anything. Our country cannot be expelled from the Council of Europe due to refusal to ratify the protocol. And many hope that it is still possible to improve the situation. “Nothing is impossible,” stated Mr. Grebennikov. And Vremya Novostei's source in the presidential administration did not rule out that a legislative loophole could still be found, for example, in the form of submitting a bill on ratification of the protocol for consideration by the next Duma.