Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm? pp 245–272Cite as

The Execution of ECtHR Judgements and the ‘Right to Object’ of the Russian Constitutional Court

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht ((BEITRÄGE,volume 285))

Abstract

In 1998 Russia ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). After a long phase of productive cooperation with the ECtHR, Russian elites started realizing that further transplantation of human rights norms and unconditional execution of ECtHR judgments may lead to dangerous and undesirable results, such as questioning of legitimacy of the current social and political order in Russia, excessive ‘Westernization’ of social and legal norms, serious conflicts with prevailing conservative, traditional values in the Russian society. In this context, the creation of a protective mechanism against the Strasbourg Court allowing Russian authorities to block or limit the legal effect of its judgments does not look surprising. Such mechanism was introduced in 2013–2015 and has already been tested several times. The Russian model of such ‘blocking mechanism’ prescribes a central role of the Constitutional Court, which acts like a ‘guardian’ of the Constitution and an ‘active legislator’ ruling on the possibility and exact manner of enforcement of a given ECtHR judgment on behalf of the Russian Federation upon requests from courts and other State bodies. Under this model any judgment of the ECtHR can be declared by the Russian Constitutional Court non-enforceable in Russia if the following two conditions are met: (1) The ECtHR judgment is in contradiction with the Russian Constitution and (2) there are no alternative ways to avoid the conflict with constitutional provisions other than its non-enforcement. The Russian Constitutional Court insists that it has a ‘right to object’, which may be derived from the Russian Constitution and general principles of international law based on consent of States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, as amended, ETS No 5.

  2. 2.

    Statute of the Council of Europe of 5 May 1949, ETS No 1.

  3. 3.

    Opinion of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe No 193 (1996) on Russia’s request for membership of the Council of Europe, para 5: ‘The Assembly notes that political, legal and economic reforms have been sustained. The legal system continues to show shortcomings […] Nonetheless, there is progress towards a general awareness of and respect for – the rule of law’.

  4. 4.

    For an analysis of this issue see L Mälksoo/W Benedek (eds), Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg Effect (2018).

  5. 5.

    For example, such basic notions as ‘home’, ‘private life’, ‘family’, ‘property’, ‘right to court’, ‘equality of arms’, etc.

  6. 6.

    For example, ‘positive obligations of State’, ‘excessive burden’, ‘reasonable expectations’, ‘proportionality’, ‘balance of public and private interests’, ‘necessary in a democratic society’, ‘legal certainty’, etc.

  7. 7.

    Non-commercial organisations and public associations were required to provide information about the amount of monetary funds and property received from international and foreign organisations.

  8. 8.

    Federal constitutional law of 20 July 2012 N 121-FKZ [Федеральный конституционный закон от 20.07.2012 N 121-ФКЗ «О внесении изменений в Закон Российской Федерации в отдельные законодательные акты Российской Федерации в части регулирования деятельности некоммерческих организаций, выполняющих функции иностранного агента»] established, inter alia, an obligation of a non-commercial organisation performing the functions of foreign agent (non-commercial organisation which receives funding and other property from foreign States, their governmental bodies, international and foreign organisations, etc and which is engaged in political activities carried out on the territory of the Russian Federation) to apply for registration in a Register of non-commercial organisations performing the functions of a foreign agent. Moreover, the Law specified a requirement for public associations to submit to the registration authority information about the funding and property received from foreign and international organisations, foreign persons.

  9. 9.

    Federal Law No 272 of 28 December 2012 [Федеральный закон от 28.12.2012 N 272-FZФЗ «О мерах воздействия на лиц, причастных к нарушениям основополагающих прав и свобод человека, прав и свобод граждан Российской Федерации»] provides the list of restrictions and measures which can be imposed against certain categories of US citizens, non-commercial organisations receiving funds from US citizens or organisations, foreign or international non-governmental organisations, whose activities have been recognised as undesirable.

  10. 10.

    Federal Law No 305 of 14 October 2014 [Федеральный закон от 14.10.2014 N 305-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в Закон Российской Федерации ‹О средствах массовой информации›»] specified limitations connected with the establishment of the mass media, broadcasting organisations. Any foreign State, any international organisation, foreign entity or controlled entity, any Russian entity with foreign involvement etc were not entitled to establish mass media, be an editorial office, manage or otherwise control mass media or a broadcasting organisation.

  11. 11.

    Under Federal Law No 327 of 25 November 2017 [Федеральный закон от 25.11.2017 N 327-ФЗ «О внесении изменений в статьи 10.4 и 15.3 Федерального закона ‹Об информации, информационных технологиях и о защите информации» и статью 6 Закона Российской Федерации «О средствах массовой информации›»] foreign mass media could be identified as foreign agent and access to their internet resources could be blocked in Russia.

  12. 12.

    Federal Constitutional Law of 14 December 2015 N 7-FKZ ‘On Introducing the Amendments to the Law on Constitutional court of the Russian Federation’ [Федеральный конституционный закон от 14.12.2015 N 7-ФКЗ «О внесении изменений в Федеральный конституционный закон ‹О Конституционном Суде Российской Федерации›»].

  13. 13.

    Federal Law of 30 March 1998 N 54-FZ on Ratification of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocols Thereto [Федеральный закон от 30.03.1998 N 54-ФЗ «О ратификации Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод и Протоколов к ней»].

  14. 14.

    Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Decision No 5 of 10 October 2003 ‘On the Application by Courts of General Jurisdiction of the Generally-Recognised Principles and Norms of International Law and the International Treaties of the Russian Federation’.

  15. 15.

    Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Decision No 21 of 27 June 2013, ‘On Application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and Protocols thereto by the Courts of General Jurisdiction’.

  16. 16.

    For a discussion see A Kovler, ‘Interaction of the European Conventional Law and the National Constitutional Law – Aggravation of the Problem (Causes and Effects)’ (2015) 1 Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 19–64. [А.И.Ковлер. Соотношение европейского конвенционного и национального конституционного права – обострение проблемы (причины и следствия) // Российский ежегодник Европейской конвенции по правам человека. Выпуск 1, “Статут”, 2015, с. 19-64].

  17. 17.

    G Ignatenko/O Tiunov, International Law (4th edn 2006), p 211 [Г. Игнатенко, О. Тиунов, Международное право, 4 издание, Москва, 2006, с. 211]; S Marochkin, The action and implementation of norms of international law in the legal system of the Russian Federation (2011), pp 106–107 [С.Ю.Марочкин. Действие и реализация норм международного права в правовой системе Российской Федерации, Москва, Норма, 2011, с. 106-107]; A Ispolinov, ‘Status of International Treaties in National Law: some theoretical and practical aspects’ (2014) 1 Russian Legal Journal 189–191 [А.C.Исполинов. Статус международных договоров в национальном праве: некоторые теоретические и практические аспекты, Российский юридический журнал. 2014. N 1].

  18. 18.

    Interview with Alexander Bastrykin, Head of Russia’s Investigative Committee, (2015) 90 Rossijskaya Gazeta. See in Russian at: <rg.ru/2015/04/28/bastrykin.html>.

  19. 19.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

  20. 20.

    V Ivanenko, ‘International treaties, Constitution and Legal System of the Russian Federation: Evolution of Correlation and Trends of Interaction’ (2010) Russian Yearbook of International Law 26–34 [Иваненко, В.С. / Международные договоры, Конституция и правовая система Российской Федерации: эволюция соотношения и тенденции взаимодействия. Российский ежегодник международного права. 2010, с. 26-34]; S Punzhyn, ‘The Legal System of Russia and International law (Variations on the Topic of the Article by S.V. Bakhin)’ (2010) 2 Pravovedenie journal 254 [Пунжин С.М. Правовая система России и международное право (вариации на тему статьи. С. В. Бахина) // Правоведение. 2010. № 2, cт. 254].

  21. 21.

    B Zimnenko, ‘The Interrelation of international and national legal norms in the Russian legal system’ (2001) Russian Yearbook of International Law 133 [Зимненко Б.Л. Соотношение международно-правовых и внутригосударственных норм в правовой системе России // Российский ежегодник международного права. СПб., 2001. С. 133]; S Marochkin, The action and implementation of norms of international law in the legal system of the Russian Federation (2011), p 108 [С.Ю.Марочкин. Действие и реализация норм международного права в правовой системе Российской Федерации, Москва, Норма, 2011, с. 108]; S Lutsenko, ‘Legal priorities in interrelation of the norms of federal and constitutional legislation and international law’ (2016) 10 Sovremennoe parvo 28–31 [Луценко С.И. Расстановка юридических приоритетов в соотношении норм федерального конституционного законодательства и международного права // Современное право. 2016. N 10. С. 28 - 31.]; M Presnyakov, ‘Organic laws in the system of constitutional legislation of the Russian Federation’ (2017) 2 Constitutional and municipal law 3–7 [Пресняков М.В. Органические законы в системе конституционного законодательства Российской Федерации // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2017. N 3. С. 3 - 7].

  22. 22.

    L Mälksoo, Russian Approaches to International Law (2015), pp 96–97.

  23. 23.

    See fn 13.

  24. 24.

    See fn 14.

  25. 25.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 2-P/2007 of 5 February 2007.

  26. 26.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 4-P/2010 of 26 February 2010.

  27. 27.

    See Plenary Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 27 June 2013 N.21 ‘On Application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 by the Courts of General Jurisdiction’.

  28. 28.

    See, e.g., T Neshatayeva, Lessons of the Case Law on Human Rights: Russian and European Experience (2007) [Нешатаева Т.Н. Уроки судебной практики о правах человека: европейский и российский опыт. М.: Городец, 2007]; A Sultanov, Protecting freedom of conscience through the lens of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (2013) [Султанов, А.Р. Защита свободы совести, распространения убеждений через призму постановлений Европейского Суда по правам человека. М. : Статут, 2013]; V Kashepov (ed), International legal standards in criminal justice of the Russian Federation (2012) [Международно-правовые стандарты в уголовной юстиции Российской Федерации: научно-практическое пособие / С.П. Андрусенко, Н.А. Голованова, А.А. Гравина; отв. ред. В.П. Кашепов. М.: ИЗиСП, Анкил, 2012.]; M Glazkova, Application of European standards of administration of justice in the Russian commercial procedural law (2012) [Глазкова М.Е. Применение европейских стандартов отправления правосудия в российском арбитражном процессе: монография. М.: ИЗиСП, Анкил, 2012]; S Gracheva, Constitutional justice and implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (2012) [Конституционное правосудие и реализация решений Европейского Суда по правам человека: Научно-практическое пособие / С.А. Грачева - М.: Контракт: ИЗиСП, 2012].

  29. 29.

    Such as the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (published since 2002), the International Justice Journal (published since 2011), the Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (published since 2015).

  30. 30.

    For example, the reform of the judicial decisions enforcement mechanism after the Burdov case (Burdov v Russia (no 2) Appl No 33509/04 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009)). See also Gerasimov and Others v Russia Appl No 29920/05 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014). Another example is the reform of the supervisory review proceedings in the highest courts of Russia (for more information see Kovaleva and Others v Russia Appl No 6025/09 (ECtHR, 25 June 2009), OOO Link Oil SPB v Russia Appl No 42600/05 (ECtHR, 25 June 2009), Abramyan and Others v Russia Appl No 38951/13, 59611/13 (ECtHR, 12 May 2015). See also, editorial note in Russia and the European Convention on Human Rights: 20 years together. 20 cases that changed the Russian legal system (2018) [Россия и Европейская конвенция по правам человека: 20 лет вместе. 20 дел, изменивших российскую правовую систему.

  31. 31.

    For a detailed analysis of the role of the Russian Constitutional Court see S Marochkin, ‘ECtHR and the Russian Constitutional Court: Duet or Duel?’ in Mälksoo & Benedek (fn 4), pp 93–124.

  32. 32.

    According to Kirill Koroteev 117 out of 242 Judgments of the Russian Constitutional Court delivered in 1998–2011 contain references to the Convention and the case law of the ECtHR. K Koroteev, ‘Place of the European Convention on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the argumentation of the Russian Constitutional Court’s judgments: from its move to St. Petersburg to the Konstantin Markin case’ (2013) 54 Comparative Constitutional Review 68–83 [Коротеев К.Н. Место Европейской конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод в аргументации решений Конституционного Суда РФ: от переезда в Санкт-Петербург до дела Константина Маркина // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2013. N 4. С. 68 - 83].

  33. 33.

    Contrary to the prevailing mode of ‘hyperpositivism’ or ‘mechanical jurisprudence’ in Russian law. See also R Mańko, ‘Survival of the Socialist Legal Tradition? A Polish Perspective’ (2013) 4.2 Comparative Law Review 1–28.

  34. 34.

    Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty of 28 April 1983, ETS No 114.

  35. 35.

    For example, according to the Levada Analytical Centre opinion poll, held in 2017 only 16 per cent of the Russian population were in favour of the death penalty abolition. Available in Russian at: <http://www.levada.ru/2017/02/08/smertnaya-kazn/>.

  36. 36.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment No 3-P/1999 of 2 February 1999; Russian Constitutional Court, Decision No 1344-O-R of 19 November 2009.

  37. 37.

    Federal Law of 9 December 2010 N 353-FZ ‘On Introducing the Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation’ [Федеральный закон от 09.12.2010 N 353-FZ «О внесении изменений в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации»].

  38. 38.

    Some of such examples are cited in an overview document prepared by the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Department upon the request of the Rapporteur on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’: ‘Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights in State Parties: Selected examples’, AS/Jur/Inf (2016)04.

  39. 39.

    For example, see the analysis of the reforms induced by the ECtHR in the cases Burdov v Russia (no 2) Appl No 33509/04 (ECtHR, 15 January 2009), Gerasimov and Others v Russia Appl No 29920/05 (ECtHR, 1 July 2014), Ananyev and Others v Russia Appl Nos 42525/07, 60800/08 (ECtHR, 10 January 2012), Abramayan and Others v Russia Appl Nos 38951/13 and 59611/13 (ECtHR, 12 May 2015).

  40. 40.

    See, for example, A Burkov, ‘The Use of European Human Rights Law in Russian Courts’ in: Mälksoo & Benedek (fn 4), pp 59–92.

  41. 41.

    Konstantin Markin v Russia Appl No 30078/06 (ECtHR, 7 October 2010).

  42. 42.

    V Zorkin, ‘Margin of Concessions’, Rossiiskaya gazeta, 29 October 2010, see at: <rg.ru/2010/10/29/zorkin.html>.

  43. 43.

    ‘Law, and only Law’, Rossiiskaya gazeta, 13 December 2010, see at: <rg.ru/2010/12/13/medvedev-ks.html>.

  44. 44.

    Interim head of the Federation Council suggests that Russia block judgments of the Strasbourg court, see at: <newsru.com/russia/20jun2011/torshin.html>.

  45. 45.

    Konstantin Markin v Russia [GC] Appl No 30078/06 (ECtHR, 22 March 2012).

  46. 46.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 27-P/2013 of 6 December 2013; Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 4-P/2014 of 26 February 2010.

  47. 47.

    Federal Constitutional Law of June 4, 2014 No. 9-FKZ ‘On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”’ [Федеральный конституционный закон от 4.06.2014 N 9-ФКЗ «О внесении изменений в Федеральный конституционный закон «О Конституционном Суде Российской Федерации»].

  48. 48.

    Alexeev v Russia Appl Nos 4916/07, 25924/08, 14599/09 (ECtHR, 21 October 2010), concerning the ban on gay pride marches.

  49. 49.

    Catan v Moldova and Russia [GC] Appl Nos 43370/04 et al (ECtHR, 19 October 2012), concerning the Convention’s extraterritorial application to the Republic of Transdniestria in Moldova and Russian State responsibility for human rights violations there.

  50. 50.

    Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia Appl Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05 (ECtHR, 4 July 2013), concerning the automatic and indiscriminate ban on the electoral rights of convicted prisoners finding violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1 by not allowing prisoners to vote in State elections.

  51. 51.

    OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia Appl No 14902/04 (ECtHR, 31 July 2014), requiring Russia to pay EUR 1.9 billion compensation to the former shareholders of the Yukos company.

  52. 52.

    A Bushev, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Cooperation and Margin of Mutual Control’ (2016) 2 Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 77–126. [А.Ю. Бушев. Европейский суд по правам человека и Конституционный Суд РФ: сотрудничество и границы взаимного контроля // Российский ежегодник Европейской конвенции по правам человека. М.: Статут, 2016. Вып. 2б с.77-126).

  53. 53.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 16-P/1999 of 23 November 1999; Kimlya and Others v Russia Appl No 76836/01, No 32782/03 (ECtHR, 1 October 2009).

  54. 54.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgments N 1-P/2005 of 1 February 2005 and N 11-П/2007 of 16 July 2007; Republican Party of Russia v Russia Appl No 12976/07 (ECtHR, 12 April 2011).

  55. 55.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Decision N 544-O-O of 5 March 2009; Lashin v Russia Appl No 33117/02 (ECtHR, 22 January 2013).

  56. 56.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 8-P/2007 of 28 June 2007; Maskhadova and Others v Russia Appl No 18071/05 (ECtHR, 6 June 2013) and Sabanchiyeva and Others v Russia Appl No 38450/05 (ECtHR, 6 June 2013).

  57. 57.

    Available at: <https://rg.ru/2015/10/21/zorkin.html>.

  58. 58.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgment N 21-P/2015 of 14 July 2015.

  59. 59.

    See opinion of the Venice Commission for Democracy Through Law of 13 June 2016 N 832/2015 ‘On the amendments of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court’, para 41; for further details, see the contribution by Martin Kuijer below (Chap. 9).

  60. 60.

    See fn 12.

  61. 61.

    See fn 41.

  62. 62.

    See fn 50.

  63. 63.

    For an assessment of the comparative law elements, see the relevant chapters by Heiko Sauer (Germany), Giuseppe Martinico (Italy), Anna Katharina Struth (Austria), and Ed Bates (United Kingdom), in this volume.

  64. 64.

    See fn 46.

  65. 65.

    See, among others, JA Green, The Persistent Objector Rule in International Law (2016); O Elias, ‘Persistent Objector’ in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (September 2006).

  66. 66.

    T Morshchakova, ‘Some Current Issues of Constitutional Justice Development in Russia’ (2017) 3 Comparative Constitutional Review 117–124 [Т.Г.Морщакова, О некоторых актуальных проблемах конституционного правосудия, Сравнительное конституционное обозрение, 2017, №3, с. 117-124]; A Ispolinov, ‘Issues of Relationship of International and Domestic Law in the Judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’ (2017) 1 Russian Law Journal 73–93 [А.C.Исполинов, Вопросы взаимодействия международного и внутреннего права в решениях Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации, Российский Юридический Журнал, 2017, N.1, с. 73-93]; A Bushev, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Cooperation and Margin of Mutual Control’ (2016) Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 77–126 [А.Ю. Бушев. Европейский суд по правам человека и Конституционный Суд РФ: сотрудничество и границы взаимного контроля // Российский ежегодник Европейской конвенции по правам человека. М.: Статут, 2016. Вып. 2б с.77-126]; D Krasikov, ‘Collisions and Illusions Amid the Convention and the Constitution: What Does Underlie the Russian Constitutional Court’s Objection to the European Court of Human Rights?’ (2016) 3 Meždunarodnoe pravosudie Journal (International Justice) 101–117 [Красиков Д.В. Конвенционно-конституционные коллизии и иллюзии: что лежит в основе “возражения” Конституционного Суда России в адрес Европейского суда по правам человека? // Международное правосудие. 2016. N 3. С. 101 – 117]; S Knyazev, ‘Executive Force of the ECtHR Judgments in a Legal System of the Russian Federation (on the Basis of the Practice of the Constitutional Court)’ (2016) 12 Journal of Russian Law 5–17 [С.Д.Князев, Обязательность постановлений ЕСПЧ в правовой системе России (на основе практики Конституционного Суда Российской Федерации, Журнал российского права, 2016, №.12, с. 5-17].

  67. 67.

    See the Opinion of the Venice Commission of 13 June 2016 N 832/2015 ‘On the amendments of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court’ CDL-AD(2016)016-e.

  68. 68.

    L Mälksoo, ‘Russia’s Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights’ (2016) 12 (2) European Constitutional Law Review 377–395; M Hartwig, ‘Vom Dialog zum Disput?’ (2017) 44 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 1–23.

  69. 69.

    See fn 50.

  70. 70.

    Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia Appl Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05 (ECtHR, 4 July 2013), para 111.

  71. 71.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgement N 12-P of 19 April 2016.

  72. 72.

    Khoroshenko v Russia [GC] Appl No 41418/04 (ECtHR, 30 June 2015).

  73. 73.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Decision N 257-О of 24 May 2005.

  74. 74.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Judgement N 24-P of 15 November 2016, paras 2.1, 2.2., 4.1 and 4.2.

  75. 75.

    OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia Appl No 14902/04 (ECtHR, 20 September 2011).

  76. 76.

    OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v Russia (Just Satisfaction) Appl No 14902/04 (ECtHR, 31 July 2014).

  77. 77.

    Action Plan for the enforcement of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in case no 14902/04, DH-DD(2013)565 of 22 May 2013.

  78. 78.

    Russian Constitutional Court, Decision N 1-P of 19 January 2017.

  79. 79.

    See fn 78 (emphasis added by the author).

  80. 80.

    Decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 10 March 2017 CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-26. On 28 November 2017, the Russian authorities informed Committee of Ministers about payment of the legal costs and expenses awarded in the case (see DH-DD(2017)1342).

  81. 81.

    A. Blankenagel, ‘“Good-Bye, Council of Europe!” or “Council of Europe, we got to talk!”? A commentary to the Russian Constitutional Court Judgment of 19 April 2016 on the implementation of the Anchugov and Gladkov Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 4 July 2013’, Comparative Constitutional Review, 2016 N.6, p.135–160 [А Бланкенагель, «Прощай, Совет Европы!» или «Совет Европы, давай поговорим!»?: Комментарий к Постановлению Конституционного Суда России от 4 июля 2013 года об исполнимости Постановления ЕСПЧ по делу Анчугова и Гладкова, Сравнительное конституционное обозрение, 2016 № 6, с. 135-160]; A Kovler, ‘Interaction of the European Conventional Law and the National Constitutional Law – Aggravation of the Problem (Causes and Effects)’ (2015) 1 Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 19–64. [А.И.Ковлер. Соотношение европейского конвенционного и национального конституционного права – обострение проблемы (причины и следствия) // Российский ежегодник Европейской конвенции по правам человека. Выпуск 1, “Статут”, 2015, с. 19-64].

  82. 82.

    This problem has been also noticed by international experts. See para 73 of the Opinion of the Venice Commission of 13 June 2016 No 832/2015 ‘On the amendments of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court’, CDL-AD(2016)016-e.

  83. 83.

    Bayev and Others v Russia Appl Nos 67667/09 et al (ECtHR, 20 June 2017).

  84. 84.

    Mariya Alekhina and Others v Russia Application No 38004/12 (ECtHR, 18 July 2018).

  85. 85.

    Navalnyy v Russia [GC] Appl Nos 29580/12 et al (ECtHR, 15 November 2018).

  86. 86.

    Alekseyev and Others v Russia, Appl Nos 14988/09 et al (ECtHR, 27 November 2018).

  87. 87.

    Georgia v Russia (II) Appl No 38263/08.

  88. 88.

    Appl Nos 20958/14, 43800/14, 42410/15, 8019/16, 70856/16, 55855/18.

  89. 89.

    ‘Ruxit’ is now seriously deliberated by both sides. According to the Russian Upper House speaker Valentina Matviyenko, the country’s authorities are considering to quit the Council of Europe available at <https://www.rt.com/russia/438941-russian-senator-council-europe>. See also statement of the Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland urging for compromise solution to the Russia crisis (available at <https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretary-general-to-pace-russian-people-would-suffer-most-if-russia-leaves-the-council-of-europe>).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Vladislav Starzhenetskiy

Authors
  1. Vladislav Starzhenetskiy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vladislav Starzhenetskiy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Marten Breuer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg 2019

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Starzhenetskiy, V. (2019). The Execution of ECtHR Judgements and the ‘Right to Object’ of the Russian Constitutional Court. In: Breuer, M. (eds) Principled Resistance to ECtHR Judgments - A New Paradigm?. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 285. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58986-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58985-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58986-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation