For the first time, the Constitutional Court will evaluate the ruling of the Strasbourg court. Government agencies insist on its non-compliance. They considered the order to give prisoners voting rights a violation of the country's sovereignty

The building of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (Photo: AP)

For the first time in St. Petersburg

The Constitutional Court on Thursday for the first time considered the issue of non-execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Officials argued that Strasbourg had exceeded its authority by demanding that Russia grant voting rights to prisoners.

The Ministry of Justice submitted a request to the Constitutional Court. The department asked that the implementation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia” be declared impossible. In July 2015, the Constitutional Court found that if a decision of the ECHR contradicts the Basic Law of the country, then it may not be implemented.

Deputy Minister Georgy Matyushkin convinced the judges of the Constitutional Court that the Strasbourg court criticized the Russian Constitution, and this was a direct “violation of the country’s sovereignty.” And the Constitution directly prohibits those who are serving a sentence in prison (Part 3 of Article 32 of the Constitution) from electing and being elected.

Right or privilege

Sergei Anchugov and Vladimir Gladkov were sentenced to death for a series of serious crimes: murder, robbery, fraud. But the capital punishment for each of them was replaced by 15 years in prison. While serving their sentences, they could not vote in the elections of the President and State Duma deputies. Both convicts filed complaints with the ECHR, which in 2013 recognized their rights as violated and demanded that the Russian side eliminate the violations.

At the meeting of the Constitutional Court, the convicts and their lawyers argued that participation in elections is now perceived not as a right of citizens, but as their privilege.

“A person with dual citizenship, in fact a foreigner, has more rights than a Russian citizen in prison,” Anchugov insisted.

The plaintiffs argued that we are talking about restricting the rights of a huge number of people - more than 526 thousand people are serving sentences in prison (statistics from the Federal Penitentiary Service as of March 1).

The applicants were supported by a representative of the Human Rights Council under the President, Ilya Shablinsky. He proposed introducing a differentiated approach and allowing, for example, those held in colony settlements to vote in elections. To do this, it is not necessary to change the Constitution, it is enough to give a new interpretation, Shablinsky convinced the judges.

Participation in criminality

Representatives of the State Duma, the Federation Council, the President, the government, the Prosecutor General's Office and the Central Election Commission opposed the implementation of the ECHR decision. They insisted that prisoners voting in elections would allow criminals to influence the formation of government bodies.

“The rights of prisoners have not been violated, and they do not need to be restored,” noted Dmitry Vyatkin, a representative of the lower house of parliament.

“We are talking about concepts such as power and crime. The Constitution categorically prohibits the participation of criminals in the formation of government bodies. From my point of view, this position should be maintained,” Federation Council representative Alexey Alexandrov supported him.

“Have there been any attempts to discuss in the State Duma how this decision can be implemented? Did you look for solutions or did you immediately [based on the decision of the Constitutional Court] reject everything,” asked Judge Gadis Gadzhiev.

“The State Duma did not take such actions, since the State Duma has a different function. The body that must implement the decision of the ECHR is the Ministry of Justice,” Vyatkin retorted.

All representatives of the authorities pointed out that Great Britain also refuses to provide rights to prisoners, which also does not implement the decision of the Strasbourg court in the case of John Hurts, who killed the owner of the apartment from whom he rented a room.

After hearing the parties, the high judges retired to the deliberation room to make a decision. Typically, a SC meeting takes about a month.

The Constitutional Court ordered to surrender the mandate

High judges on Thursday demanded that contradictions be eliminated in the implementation of their old decision to ban the return of parliamentary mandates to those who themselves refused it.

Gone and came

The reason for the hearing was a complaint from United Russia member Nikolai Goncharov, he asked the high judges to provide explanations on how to correctly implement the decision of the Constitutional Court, made back in December 2014 on his application.

In 2011, Goncharov ran for parliament in the regional group for the Stavropol Territory, but found himself in an “unpassable place.” Six months later, a candidate from his list, Yuri Em, renounced his mandate and moved to the government of the Stavropol Territory, and a year later he demanded the mandate back and received it a second time.

Formally executed

Goncharov considered this unfair and filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. As a result, in December 2014, high judges recognized violations in the current procedure and ruled that deputies who had surrendered their mandates could not return to the State Duma of the same convocation. But now Em still remains a State Duma deputy.

Representatives of the authorities and government agencies at the court hearing indicated that, from a formal point of view, the Constitutional Court’s resolution had been implemented: the laws “on elections of deputies of the State Duma” and “on basic guarantees of electoral rights” were amended in the fall of 2015, and the Supreme Court overturned the Central Election Commission’s resolution. At the same time, State Duma representative Dmitry Vyatkin pointed out that the Duma does not have the authority to prematurely take away a deputy’s mandate.

Withdraw the mandate immediately

Having considered the case, the Constitutional Court demanded that the contradictions be eliminated: “the authorized bodies must immediately adopt an act on the termination of the powers of the deputy” who received the mandate again. “Such a person cannot be considered a legal holder of a mandate,” follows from the Constitutional Court ruling.

According to the court decision, the CEC must begin the procedure for filling the vacant mandate. At the same time, Goncharov should receive the right to apply for this mandate, the judges indicated.

The Constitutional Court for the first time considered the issue of the need to implement the ECHR verdict