Legal self -isolation

Why new bills on the priority of Russian law over international are meaningless

The State Duma on the proposals of President Vladimir Putin in a shock pace includes in Russian laws the norms on non -fulfillment of decisions of international courts and other interstate bodies "in their interpretation, contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation."

Thus, one of the most fundamental constitutional novels for Putin, introduced into the basic law in July, and introducing Russia into “legal self -isolation” is implemented. At the same time, it is ignored that the European Convention ratified by Russia on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms obliges it to fulfill all the decisions of the ECHR, and not just those that you like. As the fact that in accordance with the very Russian constitution, the Putin’s novel is legally insignificant is also ignored.

In total (this is done by several “packages”), Putin proposed amending the civil, tax and family codes and more than a hundred laws - starting with the law on safety law and ending with the laws on the protection of consumer rights and psychiatric assistance.

Something has already been accepted in the third reading, something in the first, but there are no doubts about the final statement-with the current composition of the Duma-there are not the slightest.

This once again shows that even among the deputies there were separate competent lawyers, obliged to understand the legal monstrousness of what is happening: they, as in an old joke, have their own opinion, but they do not share it.

The same paragraph is inserted into all these laws: “Decisions of interstate bodies adopted on the basis of the provisions of international treaties of the Russian Federation, in their interpretation, contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, are not subject to execution in the Russian Federation. Such a contradiction can be established in the manner determined by the federal constitutional law. ”

The order in question is: the Constitutional Court, at the request of the President, may admit that the decisions of such bodies as the ECHR, the International Court of the UN, the International Criminal Court, the International Tribunal on Sea Law and others, can not be carried out if there are discrepancies with the constitution.

It is clear that the Constitutional Court, which has not been overwhelmed by the president for a long time, considering the issue of the execution of decisions, say, the ECHR or international arbitration, which will not like Putin, without the slightest labor will interpret these decisions as contradictory constitutions. Will we talk about the Crimea or the confiscation of Yukos, about dishonest elections or political repressions.

Actually, only for this (so as not to execute the decisions that are not like the Kremlin) this norm appeared: first in the Law on the Constitutional Court, and now in the Constitution.

True, back in January (when this “constitutional novel” arose) all the more or less competent constitutionalists and politicians grabbed their heads from its legal absurdity.

The Constitution, in its 15th article, directly states that “the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If the international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes other rules than stipulated by law, then the rules of the international treaty apply. ”

This article belongs to the “unchanged” federal assembly the basics of the constitutional system and cannot be revised without the adoption of a new constitution - with the preliminary convocation of the Constitutional Assembly. Naturally, the “Putin” amendments did not affect her.

So, the possibility of non -fulfillment (or electoral execution) of decisions of international courts directly contradicts this article.

One of such international treaties is the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ratified by Russia.

And paragraph 1 of Article 46 of this Convention states that "the high contracting parties-that is, the member countries of the Council of Europe- undertake to implement the final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in any case in which they are parties."

They undertake to perform without any reservations and without references to the allegedly found “interpretations of decisions”, contrary to national constitutions.

Yes, of course, the Russian authorities had done everything before to block the solutions that were not like them, or simply did not execute them. But still (not daring to leave the Council of Europe) they did not dare to directly say that they themselves would decide whether to execute these decisions or not.

But this is not all, because in contestation there is another, also “unchanged” article from the basics of the constitutional system, namely Article 16.

Where in paragraph 2 it is written that "no other provisions of this Constitution can contradict the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation."

No. Including the “Putin’s novel”, which, as already mentioned, contradicts these foundations.

This means its complete legal nullity.

As from all that are following it and hastily accepted legislative changes.

And when in Russia there will be a democratic legal state and an independent constitutional court - all these changes (like many others) will be immediately canceled without the slightest legal problems.

And it will certainly be.