Question 1

Problems of people with SMA
(Korobeynikova v. Russia,application no. 43125/21)

Submitted:
December 8, 2022

Case-law analysis:
The Institute provides the Court with materials related to the problems of Russian legislation and judicial practice on the issue of provision of patients suffering from spinal muscular atrophy ("SMA") who are over the age of 18 with the necessary medication free of charge. Annexes contain a brief description of the cases that formed the basis of the expert opinion.

The Institute provides the ECtHR with:
(a) the overview of the Russian legislation regulating free necessary drug supply to adults suffering from SMA;
(b) the Practice of refusals of executive authorities on the issue of drug provision adults suffering from SMA;
(c) the overview of the existing judicial practice as regards failure to supply adults suffering from SMA with free necessary medication.

Authors: V. Isakov and A. Kalva

Full text →

Question 2

Vaccination against COVID-19, legislation and human rights
(Thevenon v. France, application no. 46061/21)

Submitted:
March 3, 2022

Case-law analysis:
The Institute provides the Court with materials related to the Russian domestic legislation and practices on the issue of vaccination against COVID-19. The expert opinion focuses primarily on the Russian legislation and practices on the matter without commenting on the facts and merits of the "Thevenon v. France" case. As a preliminary remark it must be stated that vaccination issues are primarily regulated on the regional, not federal level in Russia. Federal legislation only covers main principles as regards vaccination (including against COVID-19).
Annexes contain a brief description of the cases that formed the basis of the expert opinion.

The Institute provides the ECtHR with:
(a) the overview of the Russian federal legislation on the issue of vaccination, with special attention given to vaccination against COVID-19;
(b) the overview of the Russian regional legislation as regards the issue of mandatory vaccination of workers against COVID-19;
(c) an overview of the existing case-law in relation to the review of the regional legislation in domestic courts and in relation to the review of individual measures concerning suspension from work due to refusal to undergo vaccination against COVID-19.

Authors: A. Suchkova, S. Mironova and V. Isakov

Full text →

Question 3

Hunger strike as a "public event" and "static demonstration"
(Dianova v. Russia, no. 21286/15; Zakharova v. Russia, no. 26805/15)

Submitted:
February 22, 2022

Case-law analysis:
The Public Events Act provides for legal definitions of the terms "public event" and "static demonstration", while the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation contains Articles 20.2 and 20.2.2 that establish liability for failure to comply with legal procedure of organisation or conduct of public events and other forms of expression occurring in public but not falling within the scope of the Public Events Act respectively. Those Articles, however, seem to apply in such a manner that does not allow to establish what forms of expression can be qualified as a public assembly within the meaning of the Public Events Act and the autonomous meaning of the Convention and what forms of expression, although occurring in public, do not fall within the meaning of a public event or assembly.
Apart from the penal law context, Russian legislation lacks definition of a hunger strike. Russian judicial practice demonstrates, however, that hunger strikes in rather small groups (from 2 to 15 persons) have been prosecuted under Article 20.2 of CAO and, therefore, are regarded as public events/assemblies (static demonstrations) within the meaning of the Public Events Act.

Main questions:
(a) Did the applicants' protest action in form of a hunger strike in the open air fall under the definition of a "public event", namely "static demonstration", within the meaning of the Public Events Act?
(b) If so, could the applicants foresee that their hunger strike would be qualified as an assembly rather than a form of expression?

Authors: A. Suchkova, S. Mironova and V. Isakov

Full text →

Question 4

Indigenous small-numbered peoples

Submitted: April 26, 2021

Legal issue: Part 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation ensures the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples «in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation». In practice, representatives of indigenous peoples face many restrictions in their desire to preserve their traditional way of life.

Questions:
1. International legal standards for the protection of the rights of representatives of indigenous peoples;
2. The historical and social context of the legal status of representatives of indigenous peoples.

Authored by: A. Osipov, V. Chepeleva and V. Fitzner

RUS Full text
The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case A. Danilov (dated 05.07.2021)

Question 5

Domestic violence

Submitted: April 7, 2021

Legal issue: In 2017, acts of domestic violence were decriminalized in Russia, if such an act was committed for the first time. Now criminal liability for people who inflict violence on their close ones can occur only if the act is repeated. At the same time, article 116.1 of the Criminal Code is formulated in such a way that less responsibility may occur for the third episode of violence than for the second. Such mechanism of punishment for inflicting violence on partners and relatives often leads to violations of victims' rights and their defenselessness before the aggressor.

Questions:
1. Determination of the goal pursued by the legislator in the process of decriminalization of the first episode of beatings in the family, and assessment of the achievement of the set legislative goal;
2. Identification of factors that increase public danger of beatings and other violent acts against close ones and necessity to criminalize such acts;
3. Designation of international legal standards of responsibility for domestic violence;
4. Analysis of the law-making and law-enforcement features of the RCC's decision execution in the case under consideration.

Authored by: D. Gryaznova, A. Chirninov with the participation of V. Chepelev and V. Fitzner

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case L. Sakova (issued on April 9, 2021

Question 6

Medical Secrecy

Submitted: September 16, 2019

Legal issue: Russian Federal law allows medics to refuse relatives of deceased patients access to information on health and treatment of the latter. This practice was used even in cases when the patient cited her relatives as having the right to such access in informed consent forms prior to their deaths.

Questions:
1. What are the international legal standards in disclosing deceased patients' secrecy?
2. What are the developments in legislation on this issue in various countries on domestic level?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, O. Podoplelova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on January 13, 2020)

Question 7

Public Authorities' Duty to Ensure Order during Public Events

Submitted: May 21, 2019

Legal issue: Russian Federal law establishes that the organizer of a public event is obliged to ensure public order and safety of citizens during this event as well as to specify the forms and methods of ensuring public order and organizing medical care. The law allows public authorities to arbitrarily determine whether the organizer has fulfilled these requirements because the law does not define the forms and methods of ensuring order.

Questions:
1. What is the state's responsibility for ensuring the public events' security?
2. What are the allowable limits of the organizers' responsibility for ensuring the safety of public events?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, O. Podoplelova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on June 18, 2019)

Question 8

Foreign Participation in Mass Media

Submitted: November 8, 2018

Legal issue: Russian Federal law provides that a citizen of the Russian Federation who has citizenship of another state is forbidden to act as a founder of mass media and is forbidden to exercise the rights of a media participant.

Questions:

How did the Russian legislation on foreign participation in mass media develop in 1991-2018?
What are the international standards for regulating foreign participation in mass media?
What experience do other countries have in regulating foreign investment in mass media?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, O. Podoplelova, Zh. Budaev

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on January 13, 2019)

Question 9

Social Payments

Submitted: August 31, 2018

Legal issue: Article 445 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code allows to reverse the execution of a court decision on the award of monthly insurance payments to a citizen for compensation of a health damage caused as a result of an industrial accident or an occupational disease, and to recover such payments from their bona fide recipients at the request of state bodies and institutions.

Questions:

What is the practice of turning the execution of court decisions on the award of payments for compensation for health damage based on Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 445 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code?
What is the discrepancy between the practice of applying Paragraph 2 of Part 3 of Article 445 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code – and the constitutional and international legal standards for the protection of citizens from the recovery of social benefits at the request of the state?
What are the specifics of execution of the Russian Constitutional Court's Ruling in this case?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, D. Mednikov, O. Podoplelova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on November 12, 2018)

Question 10

Foreign Agents Law

Submitted: July 18, 2017

Legal issue: So-called Foreign Agents Law, constitutionality of which has already been challenged in the Russian Constitutional Court, allows the Russian state to interfere in functioning of civil society organizations based in the country. Complaint No. 9988/13 'Ecozashchita' and others v. Russia and 48 other complaints, pending in the ECtHR, is on the law's application to the Russian NGOs receiving funding and other property from "foreign sources".

Questions:

Does the regulation implemented by the Foreign Agents Act interfere with the right of access to finance?
What types of restrictions on foreign financing are recognized by the CoE and other relevant national jurisdictions?
Are there any examples of restrictions like those imposed by the Foreign Agents Act, and are such restrictions allowable under international law?

Authored by: D. Mednikov, I. Osmankina, O. Podoplelova, N. Sekretaryova, G. Vaypan

RUS Full text

Question 11

Review of Court Decisions that Have Entered into Legal Force

Submitted: September 21, 2017

Legal issue: Article 392 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code allows to refer the Judicial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Russian Supreme Court's ruling to new circumstances that may cause a review of the court's decision that has entered into force in any similar case.

ILPP lawyers prepared a report in which they analyzed courts of general jurisdiction practice to review court decisions that have entered into legal force based on the Supreme Court chambers' cassation rulings and evaluated this practice in terms of its compliance with the Russian Constitution.

Questions:

What is the practice of reviewing court decisions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Part 4 of Article 392 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code based on the Supreme Court chambers' cassation rulings?
What is the discrepancy between the Russian Constitution and the reviewing court decisions practice in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Part 4 of Article 392 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code based on the Supreme Court chambers' cassation rulings?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, D. Mednikov, I. Osmankina, O. Podoplelova, N. Sekretaryova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on October 17, 2017)

Question 12

Restrictions on Voting Rights

Submitted: March 28, 2016

Legal issue: The ECtHR, after examining complaints by Anchugov and Gladkov against the Russian Federation, found a violation of an article of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Russian Federation, as all persons serving a prison sentence in the Russian Federation are denied active suffrage.

Questions:

What are the principles applied for the interpretation of the provisions of the Russian Federation's Constitution when considering cases on the possibility of executing decisions of an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms?
What is the normative content of the provision of Part 3 of Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, considering its systemic, historical and evolutionary interpretation?
Are there ways to enforce the judgment of the European Court on the case "Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russian Federation" in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, O. Podoplelova, V. Beloborodov

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on April 19, 2016)

Question 13

Compensation to Yukos Shareholders

Submitted: December 7, 2016

Legal issue: The ECtHR ruled that the Russian Federation is obliged to pay amount of EUR 1866104634, as well as any tax due on this amount, as compensation for material damage to the shareholders of the Yukos oil company. The Ministry of Justice requests the Constitutional Court to declare the ruling unenforceable under the Russian Constitution.

Questions:

Is it possible for a shareholder, a former shareholder of a dissolved legal entity to lodge an individual complaint with the ECtHR in defense of the rights of the legal entity or in defense of his or her rights, based on the admissibility criteria for individual complaints set out in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including their interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights?
Apart from the case of JSC Yukos Oil Company, does the European Court of Human Rights have any other judgments:

- awarding similar compensation to persons who were not applicants in the case under consideration.
- finding a violation of the rights of the applicant company to recover tax sanctions and administrative fees established by domestic law from it in terms of the fact of recovery, its amount and procedure?

Are there constitutionally permissible ways and means of enforcing this judgment of the European Court of Human Rights?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, E. Manzhosova, D. Mednikov, I. Osmankina, O. Podoplelova and N. Sekretareva

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on January 19, 2017)

Question 14

Legal Professional Privilege

Submitted: November 9, 2015

Legal issue: Articles 29, 165 and 182 of the the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation establish grounds and procedures for search warrants. They allow courts to authorise investigators to search lawyers' premises as well as the premises of legal profession institutions and to seize documents and materials containing legal professional privilege.

Questions:

Is it possible to authorize a search in lawyers' houses/office that includes complete seizure documents and materials containing legal professional privilege?
Is there a requirement to specify the reason of the search in relation to a lawyer?
What is the involvement of independent third parties in search with a view to protecting legal professional privilege and resolving disputes over the status of the seized documents and materials

Authored by: G. Vaypan, O. Podoplelova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on December 17, 2015)

Question 15

Rehabilitation

Submitted: September 15, 2015

Legal issue: The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows courts not to accept legal entities' claims for lost profits under Chapter 18 (Rehabilitation).

Questions:

Why has the Russian Federation developed a deeply contradictory judicial practice on the procedure used for the recovery of lost profits?
Is it not consistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation to consider the claims of rehabilitated persons for the recovery of lost profits in civil proceedings instead of the procedure provided for in Chapter 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation?

Authored by: G. Vaypan, N. Sekretareva, O. Podoplelova

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on December 1, 2015)

Question 16

Reopening of Cases

Submitted: April 30, 2015

Legal issue: The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation limits the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings in view of new or newly discovered circumstances and based on the Opinion of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention containing information on the violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in criminal proceedings.

Questions:

What is the legal status of the UN Human Rights Council's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and whether it can make binding demands?
What is the legal nature of the Opinion of the UN Human Rights Council's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, what are its legal implications and can the requirements it contains be considered binding?
What is the emerging practice of States in responding to the demands put forward by the UN Human Rights Council's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its Opinions, and what are the measures recommended for their implementation?
Can the Working Group's Opinions serve as grounds for reopening a criminal case in view of new or newly discovered circumstances in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and whether this possibility is affected by the nature of the detected violations of the convicted person's rights?
Is the Russian Federation entitled to refrain from implementing the Opinions?

Authored by: S. Golubok, K. Russkih and N. Sekretareva

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on June 9, 2015)

Question 17

Prosecution

Submitted: January 15, 2015

Legal issue: Federal law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" sets out the grounds for the Prosecutor's Office to conduct inspections to verify the compliance with the law. It also defines Prosecutor's powers when carrying out such inspections. The applicants challenge the constitutionality of the respective provisions.

Questions:

What is the admissibility of the general supervisory powers of the Prosecutor's Office and how do they relate to the competence of other public authorities?
How is the principle of legal certainty respected in the regulation of the Prosecutor's Office's supervisory activities?
How is the principle of proportionality respected in the Prosecutor's Office's supervisory activities?

Authored by: G. Vaypan

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on February 17, 2015)

Question 18

Law on "Foreign Agents"
Submitted: February 28, 2014

Legal issue: Russian Federal Law on Non-Profit Organisations, Federal Law No. 121 and the Code of Administrative Offences impose an obligation on Russian non-profit organisations receiving funding from foreign sources and engaging in political activities in Russia to register as organisations performing the functions of "foreign agents", along with additional reporting and disclosure obligations.

Questions:

Why does the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, unlike the Federal Law No. 121, require proof of an agency relationship between a "foreign agent" and its "foreign principal"?
Why does the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, unlike Federal Law No. 121, not apply to public activities

Authored by: G. Vaypan

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on April 8, 2014)

Question 19

Russia and the ECtHR

Submitted: October 23, 2013

Legal issue: Russian Civil Procedure Code allows the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights to be considered stronger in law in the Russian legal system in those cases when they conflict with the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the same legal issue.

Questions:

What is the issue of competition between the legal positions of the ECtHR and the legal positions of higher national (constitutional) courts: a comparative legal perspective?

Authored by: G. Vaypan

RUS Full text
RUS The Constitutional Court's Ruling on the case (issued on December 6, 2013)