Lawsuit against the president's office

The Russian Court Called The Fact of Filing A Suit Against The Administration of The President of Russia A Violation of The Foundations of The Constitutional Order!

We are talking about the strange conclusion of the Tverskoy Court of Moscow that the only one hundred percent legal way of resolving a dispute in a state governed by the rule of law – filing a suit with a court, is an infringement on the foundations of the constitutional order and interference in the activities of state authorities. What is going on?

First of all, I want to ask readers for leniency on my knowledge of the English language. Additionally, I write about a law topic. This article in Russian is on my russian-speaking blog LiveAkaLive.

The Essence of The Conflict And The Grounds For Filing A Suit Against The Administration of The President of The Russian Federation

The editorial board of the “Sota.Vision” mass media filed a suit to declare the actions of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation illegal. “Sota” was not included in the list of accredited media. We are talking about the refusal of media accreditation for a large press conference of Russian President Vladimir Putin in December 2020.

The court makes a strange conclusion that the stated suits “are aimed at a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers and represent an attempt of unlawful interference by this administrative plaintiff in the constitutional, legal and other activities of the President of the Russian Federation”.

What Seems Strange To Me In These Court Conclusions?

The right to judicial protection and to file a claim in court is a basic constitutionally guaranteed right of everyone. This is one of the basic rights. Articles 19 and 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation just guarantee it.

The right to judicial protection and to file a claim in court is a basic constitutionally guaranteed right of everyone. This is one of the basic rights. Articles 19 and 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation just guarantee it.

Quote:

Article 19

1. All people shall be equal before the law and court.

2. The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.

3. Man and woman shall enjoy equal rights and freedoms and have equal possibilities to exercise them.

Article 46

1. Everyone shall be guaranteed judicial protection of his rights and freedoms.

2. Decisions and actions (or inaction) of bodies of state authority and local self-government, public associations and officials may be appealed against in court.

3. Everyone shall have the right to appeal, according to international treaties of the Russian Federation, to international bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms, if all the existing internal state means of legal protection have been exhausted.

In the ruling of the Tver Court in case No. Ma-0057/2021, you can read all the wording yourself. It is available on the official website of the court.

The court also makes a strange conclusion that the institution of immunity of the President of the Russian Federation, enshrined in Article 91 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, “is a deviation from the constitutional principle of equality before the law and the court (Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).”

Quote:

Article 91

The President of the Russian Federation shall possess immunity.

This is a very strange conclusion, given that the strength of the above constitutional norms is different. The norms of Article 19 – on equality before the law and the court and the right to judicial protection (Article 46) are referred to Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And article 91 – to chapter 4.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation itself establishes different legal force for the norms contained in it and their significance.

How is it expressed? In the prescribed procedure for changing them. The provisions of Chapter 4 and Article 91 are subject to general amendment.

Chapter 9 of the Constitution of Russia provides for the possibility of its amendment by the Federal Assembly. A complex procedure for voting and approval is provided. However, the provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the Basic Law cannot be revised by the Federal Assembly. I draw your attention to the fact that the norms on rights and freedoms, the foundations of the system are precisely in these chapters. And the issue of the President’s immunity in the general order can be revised at any time.

To change the provisions of Chapters 1, 2 and 9, in fact, you need to adopt a NEW CONSTITUTION. Because this requires:

  • first, support for the draft amendments to the foundations of the constitutional order and the list of human and civil rights by three-fifths of the votes of the total number of members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma;
  • convocation of the Constitutional Assembly.

Thus, it seems wrong to attach greater importance to the norms on the immunity of the President, in comparison with the norms on the rights of citizens and the foundations of the state system.

Also, the conclusion about the inadmissibility of judicial appeal against the actions and decisions of public authorities seems to be incorrect. Back to the order of the USSR or Tsarist Russia? The very fact of such thinking and its translation outside seems destructive for the development of society.

What’s Happening?

While I was writing these lines, I began to catch myself thinking that I had to carefully select every word in this text. The temperature and tension in society is gradually increasing. And this is mainly due to the actions of the government.

Isn’t everything that is happening part of one big plan to dismantle a certain amount of rights and freedoms of citizens in the country? Moreover, this has been repeatedly stated by officials of state bodies.

Example: Minister Lavrov in 2021 talks about the “crisis of the liberal development model.” More details in the article on the Vedomosti website.

The same Lavrov, quote: “Liberal values ​​contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” Source on YouTube.

It seems to me that the speakers, or as journalists say, “talking heads”, are deliberately playing at the substitution of concepts and terms. They take advantage of the fact that the same phenomenon in different languages ​​is described in different terms. Liberalism = the doctrine of human rights and freedoms.

I end on this cheerful note. Thank you for reading the article to the end.

Yes, I am a lawyer by training. My specialty is constitutional law and elections. And I do not see the application of my professional skills in the conditions of the reality of modern Russia.

Author: Vladimir Shveda
Photo: pixabay.com

Leave a Reply