The Constitutional Court made it mandatory to consider administrative cases with lawyers

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that courts of general jurisdiction do not have the right to deny detainees in administrative cases the right to call a lawyer.

Earlier, the Constitutional Court received a complaint from Alexander Davydov, a resident of Tolyatti. In the spring of last year, he received three days of administrative arrest for disobedience to a police officer. The decision was made by the Komsomolsky District Court the very next day after his arrest. At the same time, the judge refused the man's request to postpone the court session in order to conclude an agreement with the defense counsel and call the witnesses indicated in the protocol to court.

The refusal was motivated by the fact that, according to the law, the consideration of the case must be completed no later than 48 hours from the moment of administrative detention. The judge also pointed out that immediately after drawing up the protocol, Davydov could call the lawyer from his mobile, and there were enough materials in the case to consider it without calling witnesses to court.

In the complaint, the man also pointed out that the rule of the Code of Administrative Offenses he challenged violates his constitutional rights, since it allows the court to refuse him the assistance of a lawyer and prevents the summoning of witnesses to the court who could confirm his innocence.

In its ruling, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the importance of the constitutional right to qualified legal assistance cannot be ignored in proceedings on administrative offenses. Especially when the degree of intrusion into human rights and freedoms is comparable to the measures of criminal law influence. A special term for the consideration of cases of administrative offenses, the commission of which entails administrative arrest, is established for the purpose of prompt judicial protection of the rights of the corresponding category of persons. But the discrepancy between the rules established in the article and the guarantees of a person provided for by other articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses cannot be the only reason for refusing to provide him with access to the assistance of a defense lawyer.

A reasonable deviation from the time limits stipulated by the norm, if it is dictated by the need to ensure a person's access to the assistance of a lawyer, does not diverge from the constitutional principle of the inevitability of liability. Therefore, the judge is not entitled to refer to the terms as an unconditional circumstance preventing the exercise of the right.