The State Duma needed too much effort to clear away the rubble / Andrey Gordeyev / Vedomosti

Currently, 31 decisions of the Constitutional Court (CC) have not been implemented, with only nine of them adopted this year, according to an information and analytical report published on the court's website. Eight unimplemented decisions have remained since 2018, four have been pending since 2017, and the oldest are dated 2010.

In total, the Constitutional Court calculated that in 2018, 47 resolutions were adopted there, of which in 19 cases the legal provisions were recognized as not in compliance with the Basic Law of the country and in 17 cases an order was given on the need to implement legal regulation. Last year, the federal legislator adopted a total of 16 federal laws in pursuance of the Constitutional Court's decisions. Another 16 are in the State Duma at various stages of the legislative process.

Overall, the situation is improving: in 2016, for example, the number of unimplemented Constitutional Court decisions reached 45. At the same time, the implementation of decisions adopted relatively recently is “characterized by sufficient efficiency,” the court acknowledges. Thus, almost all decisions adopted in 2017 have already been implemented, and the remaining four bills are currently in the State Duma. Things are more complicated with those adopted in previous years – seven bills introduced to the State Duma of the previous convocation are there without any progress.

The problem is that the State Duma regulations allow deputies of the new convocation to refuse to consider or change the order of passage of so-called carryover bills, the court secretariat notes. While all other subjects of rule-making (the president, the government, regional legislative and executive bodies of state power) are bound by the relevant deadlines for implementing court decisions, State Duma deputies are not limited in this regard. The situation is complicated by the fact that the State Duma often rejects bills developed to implement Constitutional Court decisions. In 2018, for example, four such bills were rejected, and the government gave instructions to prepare new ones only for two decisions. The implementation of decisions on two more - on the procedure for terminating criminal cases on non-rehabilitating grounds (on the right of relatives to rehabilitation) and protecting the rights of minor owners of residential premises - is delayed. A similar fate befell the bill implementing a decision made back in 2012, allowing foreclosure on a debtor’s only home if its size exceeds the limits of “reasonable need.” In 2017, the State Duma rejected the bill prepared by the government, and a new one is still being developed.

State Duma representative in the Constitutional Court Marina Bespalova explains the delays in work by the fact that the current convocation of deputies had to literally rake through the rubble of bills left over from the previous one. This required a lot of effort and resources. However, now the work is gradually getting back on track and this will certainly affect the implementation of the Constitutional Court decisions, she is sure. According to Bespalova, the report of the Constitutional Court secretariat has already been discussed at the State Duma Council, the bills have been included in the work plan, and the necessary instructions have been given. The problem is that the Constitutional Court sometimes makes decisions that are difficult to understand and, accordingly, very difficult to implement, the federal official admits.

The topic of the execution of Constitutional Court decisions is the same age as the court itself, although the number of decisions used to be higher, recalls Olga Kryazhkova, associate professor at the Russian State University of Justice. Officially, this is usually explained by the fact that some of the bills are inherited by the current convocation of the State Duma from previous convocations and are stuck. But, of course, this is not the only explanation: the execution of decisions is also affected by the fact that deadlines for drafting bills are set, but for their subsequent adoption in parliament - there are none. It is possible that there are political reasons for the failure to implement specific decisions, the expert adds. For example, this is the case of the possibility of registering at the place of residence in summer cottages. Apparently, this is too significant a story, affecting the interests of many departments.

The Constitutional Court analyzed the implementation of its decisions by the Duma