Elena Lukyanova: "The Constitutional Court will have to dodge and mow an eye"

In connection with the intention of the State Duma, to finally adopt a bill on the deprivation of passive suffrage of many citizens of Russia, Doctor of Law, Elena Lukyanova, notes on the blog on the website of the Echo of Moscow radio station that this bill directly contradicts the constitution and the law on guarantees of electoral rights.

“First. First, that on the surface. So, the bill is limited by the passive suffrage of Russian citizens (the right to be the elected deputy of the State Duma) involved in the activities of organizations recognized by the court extremist or terrorist.“ Oh, how so? ” - you say and will be right.

Part 3 of Article 32 of the Constitution of Russia states: "They do not have the right to elect, be elected citizens recognized by the court as legally incompetent or contained in places of imprisonment by the court sentence." And no word of terrorist or extremist organizations. That is, the contradiction with the constitution is evident. But not only with the constitution.

The project contradicts another law - "On the Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in the Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation." This act, which has priority over all other electoral laws, provides a closed list of cases when Russian citizens cannot be elected to authorities and local self -government. This list is wider than the constitutional (the Constitutional Court allowed the legislator this), but there is not a word about supporters of prohibited organizations. Moreover, the rule in accordance with which all federal laws, the constitutions (charters), the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, other regulatory legal acts on elections and referenda adopted in the Russian Federation should not contradict this law is valid. If the Federal Law, the Constitution (Charter), the law of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, another regulatory legal act on elections and (or) referendum contradict it, then the norms of this Law are applied (part 6 of Article 1). That is, if the amendments are accepted in the form in which they were brought to the State Duma, they will not work anyway. In order for the amendments to earn a need to correct this law. But the deputies did not do this. Moreover, they specially agreed in the text of the bill that they would not amend any amendments to other laws.

Second. Another largest “blunder” of the bill is to give the introduction of retroactive restrictions. Amendments are proposed to limit the passive electoral law of "supporters and ordinary members" of organizations recognized, extremist or terrorist or terrorist a year before they are recognized as such, and their leaders have already three years before. Now twice the evidence of passive suffrage as a measure of responsibility using the retroactive force of the law ...

The indisputable, not requiring evidence of the axiom of constitutional law, an unshakable legal principle, which is unconditionally known to any lawyers (former Soviet, post -Soviet, international) that the law that establishes or aggravating responsibility has no return force is non -deleted. This is an indisputable alphabet of jurisprudence. Moreover, we are talking about an unlimited article of the Constitution (see Part 3 of Article 56). So you can’t and the point. But no. A group of parliamentary deputies and decided to compete with this.

Knowing our constitutional court, I imagine how he, the poor man, will have to dodge and mow an eye, if our amendment appears before his bright eyes. The court, of course,, as has already happened, paints that the restriction introduced is not quite responsible. That this is just a "special constitutional and legal disqualifying obstacle to the training of elective public posts" (see: Decree of 10.10.2013 N 20-P, paragraph of the second paragraph 3 of the motivation part). But with the reverse force of this "obstacle", it will be extremely difficult to glorify it without a special dizzying legal somersault.

Third. The proposed amendments are "rubber". This is such a domestic professional term denoting the non -compliance of the law to the principle of legal certainty. That is, the law does not clearly define the boundaries of legitimate behavior, having entered into which the subject of legal relationship will be liable. And since this is not, then its actions can be interpreted and evaluated arbitrarily. For all world and Russian standards, this is unacceptable. Including this repeatedly spoke in his decisions the Constitutional Court. That is, any "rubber" law has no right to exist. Moreover, the considered. Because it is rubber many times.

Firstly, it is not clear who these same "involved" in the activities of extremist and terrorist organizations, which are proposed to limit the right to participate in state governance. The project says that these are supporters and ordinary members. I’m standing, for example, as far from the office - am I already a supporter? And if ordinary members - then does this mean that the organization certainly should have membership as a political party, for example?

Secondly, it is not clear what it means “advised, provided organizational and methodological support or helped in some other way”? You can also advise the process of washing windows in the office, and support the support of pies and thermos with coffee in the cold season. Who are supporters and ordinary members of organizations? And if there is no one, then how then? That is why the experts who evaluate this legal “masterpiece” naturally have fears that it can affect dozens or even hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens, who, for some kind of not entirely intelligible subjective reasons, will not please any of the authorities of those who are bordering or law enforcement.

Fourth and further. The amendments are proposed to be introduced from the moment of their official publication, and not ten days after it, as it should be by law. The project and the explanatory note are drawn up in an inaccurate way ... you can continue this list. But is it necessary? And so everything is already clear - this is a frank legal marriage, unacceptable in a normal state.

No matter how his initiators try to hide behind the streamlines of their formulations, everything is clear to everyone - and why these amendments, and against whom they are directed, and why such a rush. The main thing is to prevent real competitors to the elections and hold power at all costs, declaring all extremists and terrorists.

You can’t. But I really want to. And if I really want to, then, then, you can. For, of course, it is completely unacceptable to endure in the political arena of Russia the presence of real fighters with corruption, political opponents and other different and free-designed audience, which doubts the legitimacy of the authorities of the bill to the author and others like them. "