The constitutional court first used the recently adopted law on the abolition of priority of international law over domestic. He did this while explaining the decision of the ECHR on the right to vote for prisoners.
photo: Natalia Gubernatorova
A lawsuit to the ECHR was filed by two Russians — Sergey Anchugov and Vladimir Gladkov. Being in the 90-ies of the convicted murders, they were able to vote and considered it a violation of their rights. The ECtHR ruled that a similar provision in Russian law violates the European Convention.
With this position and agreed the Russian COP. The judges felt that the original Convention did not contain a rule requiring the right to vote for all prisoners, and thus, it has already established the judges of the ECHR, “evolutionary” interpreting the document.
However, the COP still went on some concessions. Refusing to execute the decision of the international court, he, however, noted that some forms of detention, in particular for the penal settlements, deputies of the Duma can change the law, but left it to their own discretion. For more severe types of punishment the COP in this case to allow a vote refused.
Experts note that the case Anchugov and Gladkov due to its relative neutrality can be a trial balloon for new solutions — in particular, to pay shareholders of Yukos to 1.86 billion rubles, which the COP may also recognize as not corresponding to the Russian legislation.
A Russian court emphasized that he expects a dialogue with the ECHR by refusing to obey his decisions without discussion.Related posts: