Statistical data: 1 January 1996 - 30 April 1996

Total number of decisions: 11 Types of decision:
• Rulings: 11
• Opinions: 0
Categories of cases:
• Interpretation of the Constitution: 1
• Conformity with the Constitution of acts of State bodies: 10
• Conformity with the Constitution of international treaties: 0
• Conflicts of competence: 0
• Observance of a prescribed procedure for charging the President with high treason or other grave offence: 0
Types of claim:
• Claims by State bodies: 5
• Complaints of individuals: 6
• Inquires of courts: 0

Important decisions

Identification: RUS-96-1-001
a) Russia / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 18.01.1996 / e) / f) / g) Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 01.02.1996 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional justice - The subject of review – Regional measures.
General principles - Federal State.
Institutions - Federalism and regionalism – Distribution of powers - System.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Regions, legislative procedure / Regions, separation of powers.

Headnotes:
Under the Constitution of the Russian Federation sole power to adopt laws rests with the legislative bodies. At the same time the Constitution ensures the separation of powers by giving the Head of State a substantial role in the passing of laws, ie the right of veto and of promulgation. This is also important with regard to the legislative process at the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, where laws are usually promulgated by their Head of Government.

Summary:
The application by the Government of Altai Territory challenged certain provisions of the Territory's Statute. These provisions were alleged to be incompatible with the Constitution of the Russian Federation because the system of territorial State authorities which they established was contrary to the basis of the constitutional system, the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of State authorities which flows from it; this system was said to violate the unity of the system of State authorities as well as the rules laid down by the Constitution of the Russian Federation for the legal settlement of questions falling within the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its constituent entities.
In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the balance of power with regard to the adoption of laws would be upset if laws were to be passed and promulgated by the same body. The Head of Government has the right of veto in respect of laws passed by the legislative organs as well as the right to sign and publish laws. The Statute can strike a balance between these powers by laying down a procedure to nullify the veto of the Head of Government and oblige him/her to sign the law subject to certain conditions.
The constitutional principle of the unity of State authority requires that the constituent entities of the Russian Federation conform basically to the federal model of relations between the executive and legislative powers. Given that the Constitution stipulates that the legislative and executive branches of power are independent, it is unacceptable - and exceeds the limits set by the Constitution - to include provisions in the Statute which make the executive authority subordinate to the representative body. This would be contrary to the Constitution as it would prevent application of the provision whereby, in respect of certain powers, the federal organs of executive power and those of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation form a single system of executive authority.

Languages: Russian, French (translation by the Court).

Identification: RUS-96-1-002
a) Russia / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 20.02.1996 / e) / f) / g) Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 29.02.1996 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Legislative bodies - Status of members of legislative bodies.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights – Personal liberty.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Procedural safeguards - Detention pending trial.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Deputies, status / Parliamentary immunity.

Headnotes:
Parliamentarians do not enjoy full immunity in respect of acts which are not related to their parliamentary activities.

Summary:
The proceedings were instituted following a request by the President of the Russian Federation for verification of the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Federal Law "on the status of members of the Federation Council and the status of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation". These proceedings were instituted on grounds of uncertainty as to the constitutionality of these provisions.
The Constitution states that members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma enjoy immunity for the duration of their term of office: they cannot be detained, arrested, subjected to a house search - except in cases of flagrante delicto - or to a body search -except in cases provided for by federal law with a to guaranteeing the safety of others; immunity can be lifted by the relevant Chamber of the Federal Assembly at the proposal of the Principal State Prosecutor. Parliamentary immunity, as embodied in the Constitution, is one of the main aspects of parliamentary status and the most important legal guarantee covering parliamentarians' work. In view of its scope, it affords a higher degree of protection then the general constitu-tional guarantees of the inviolability of the individual. It is, however, not an individual privilege, as it is of a public law nature and serves public interests by providing greater legal protection of the person of parliamentarians on account of the official functions they fulfil, by protecting them against ill-founded proceedings, allowing them and consequently Parliament to perform their parliamentary activities freely and independently.
The Constitutional Court acknowledged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law on the requirement of consent from the relevant Chamber of the Federal Assembly in order to bring judicial proceedings of a criminal or administrative nature against deputies or to question them about acts committed in the course of their parliamentary activities, as well as the provision requiring the Principal State Prosecutor to apply to the relevant Chamber of the Federal Assembly for such consent.
It ruled, however, that the Law's provisions as they applied to acts not related to a deputy's parliamentary activities were not constitutional. In cases where criminal or administrative proceedings have been initiated in respect of acts not related to deputies' parliamentary activities, the consent of the relevant Chamber of the Federal Assembly must be secured prior to bringing the case before the courts as well as after completion of the investigation or at the stages of pre-trial "instruction" or the procedure relating to administrative fines. Measures such as detention, arrest, and house- or body-searches are to be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Languages: Russian, French (translation by the Court).

Identification: R US-96-1-003
a) Russia / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 07.03.1996 / e) / f) / g) Rossiyskaya Gazeta, 19.03.1996 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional justice - Types of claim - Claim by a private body or individual - Natural person.
Constitutional justice - The subject of review - Laws and other rules having the force of law. Institutions - Courts - Organisation - Members - Status.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Procedural safeguards - Access to courts.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right of petition.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Judges, Appointments Board / Judges, immunity.

Headnotes:
The rule whereby criminal proceedings cannot be instituted against a judge without the consent of the Appointments Board is one of the guarantees of judges' inviolability. The Appointments Board's refusal to give its consent to criminal proceedings against a judge can be challenged by appealing first to the Supreme Appointments Board and then to the courts.

Summary:
The proceedings were instituted following an appeal by citizens alleging violation of their constitutional rights by a provision of the Russian Federation Law on "the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation", on the grounds of uncertainty as to the constitutionality of the Law which stipulates that criminal proceedings can be brought against a judge only with the consent of the relevant Appointments Board.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims that judges are inviolable. This is the principle by reference to which practical questions of judges' immunity and liability are to be resolved; criminal proceedings may only be brought against judges according to the procedure provided for by federal law.
The provision of the Law whereby criminal proceedings cannot be instituted against a judge without the consent of the Appointments Board is one of the guarantees of judges' inviolability.
The Appointments Board is the judges' body which ensures that legislation on the status of judges is applied. The requirement of consent from the Appointments Board concerned for the institution of criminal proceedings against a judge does not go beyond the guarantees which may be considered necessary and sufficient to ensure judges' inviolability.
The Appointments Board's refusal to give its consent to criminal proceedings against a judge may be challenged by appealing to the Supreme Appointments Board. A provision of the Constitution states that appeals may be brought before the courts against the acts and decisions of State bodies, local self-government bodies, public associations and officials which result in a violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens or prevent citizens from exercising such rights and freedoms. There are no exceptions to this constitutional principle.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the cited provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the status of judges in the Russian Federation" comply with the Constitution.

Languages: Russian, French (translation by the Court).