Your amendments? So do it!

The Moscow City Court, like the Ministry of Justice, is not a competent authority to challenge the decision of the ECHR in the case of Navalny

The Moscow City Court published the full text of the court of appeal Dmitry Balashov in the case of replacing Alexei Navalny with a conditional term with a real one, which was proclaimed on February 20. By the plot, it does not differ from the decision of the Simonovsky court of February 2, but supplemented by a rebuke to the ECHR, who, with his demand to free Navalny from the guard, “shaked” just between the decisions of the first and second instances.

The Moscow City Court agreed that "from August 20 to September 23, 2020, Navalny was treated." First in hospital No. 1 of Omsk, and subsequently in the clinic “Shary” Berlin. But after this obstacles, he did not have an obstacle, to come and be noted in the Federal Penitentiary Service. On October 16, the FSIN sent him a warning about the turnout on October 23, which was ignored. “It was not possible to establish the whereabouts of the convict,” and on December 29 Navalny was put on the wanted list that neither him nor his defense appealed.

Remaining in Berlin on outpatient treatment, Navalny could not find out about the warning directed by the Federal Penitentiary Service at his Moscow address, as well as on his wanted list. But the whole world knew where he was at that time - and only the FSIN "did not know." The Moscow City Court copied this “plot” from the decision of the Simonovsky court, but further confusion begins in its definition.

Judge Balashov refused to take into account the decision of the ECHR, "since the indicated court is not a higher court for the judicial system of the Russian Federation."

The judge refers to the “decision of the ECHR of February 17” and “sees from the text” that we are not talking about contacting him (to court), but about “Appeal of the Committee of the ECHR ministers to the Russian government”.

Contrary to the opinion of Judge Balashov, the Committee of Ministers is the body of the Council of Europe, not the ECHR. The decision of the ECHR on interim measures against Navalny was adopted on February 17, not on February 17. This is not about the “instructions of the ECHR of the Courts of the Russian Federation”, which he, of course, is not entitled to give, but about the document to which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe accompanied the decision of the ECHR. In his meaning in places of imprisonment, Navalny is in danger. Of course, it is not said directly that it comes from the Russian special services - this would be incorrect from a diplomatic point of view - but this is precisely what is meant.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe does not ask for the answer of the Moscow City Court - he addresses “Russia” as a participant in the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. He doesn’t care which authority in Russia will fulfill the requirement to free Navalny until the final decision of his case on the merits.

And the Minister of Justice Chuychenko, who took to argue with the ECHR on the same day, and the judge of the Moscow City Court Balashov could report to the Council of Europe on the fulfillment of the requirements of the ECHR. This could even do Dmitry Peskov, who also spoke with his sardonic commentary on the ECHR, and that would be normal. But none of the listed officials is authorized to give an opinion on the inconsistency of the decision of the ECHR in the Russian Federation.

As we have already reported (“New” No. 18–19), the situation of irreplaceable decisions of the ECHR was envisaged when amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation last summer. In accordance with clause 5.1 (in the new edition) of Art. 125 of the Constitution “to resolve the issue of the possibility of enforcing decisions of interstate bodies ... in their interpretation, contradicting the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as on the possibility of execution of a decision ... of the international (interstate) court ... imposing duties on the Russian Federation, if this decision contradicts the fundamentals of the public law and order of the Russian Federation” is competent only by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

They themselves created a mechanism - so let's follow it. Moreover, we see that judges of general jurisdiction are confused in matters related to the competence of the ECHR and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The constitutional court will also not be easy to justify the inconsistent of the liberation of Navalny from custody, but he will try.