Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Manifestation of Resistance in Constitutional Law (the Case Study of Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights)

Introduction. The article is devoted to the analysis of conflicts between the interpretation of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights in the context of a particular problem and how the resistance of national legislation to acts of an international character is manifested. Theoretical analysis. The article deals with decisions concerning the promotion of information about homosexual preferences to minors, which, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court, may harm their development. The European Court considers that this restriction is a kind of violation of the rights and freedoms of sexual minorities. Also, a resolution was adopted, according to which the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are priority in relation to acts of an international character. In this regard, the Constitutional Court in its response decision declared it impossible to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to award compensation by the Russian Federation to the YUKOS company. Conclutions. The following conclusions are presented. Despite the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its decisions, seeks to achieve a compromise between the interests of the majority groups of the country’s population and private individual preferences, as well as a dialogue with the international court of justice on the principle of equal partnership. These components are the basis for the stability of our legislation and our values, since, on the one hand, it does not allow harmful acts of a normative nature to penetrate and take hold, and, on the other hand, it preserves the democratic essence of Russian law. To implement the above in real life, we recommend the following: 1) adhere to and seek a balance between different systems of values, 2) justify at the level of theory and introduce into legal practice the doctrine of the constitutional identity of the country, based on the interpretation of the basic values of the Russian Federation.

Modern Constitutional-Legal Regulation of the Organization and Activity of Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to Russia

Introduction. RF President occupies a leading place in the system of Russian power. RF Constitution in art. 80 determines the RF status of the President as head of state, whose responsibilities include security, coordination and control of the most important areas of public administration: the Constitution, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, its independence and state integrity, coordinated functioning and interaction public authorities. The fundamental tools in the work of the Head of State spoke of his powers to determine the main directions of domestic and foreign policy in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws, as well as the Russian representative in the country and in international relations. For the implementation of competence, the President shall have broad powers laid down in Chapter 4 and other articles of the Basic Law and constitutional law. Thus, the President is entitled to form its own unit, namely the Administration and its member plenipotentiaries (pp. I), k) art. 83 of the Constitution). Purpose. The main objective of the work is theoretical understanding of institute of plenipotentiaries of the Head of the Russian State and to develop practical recommendations to improve regulation and enforcement. Results. It is stated that the establishment of the institute of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation is defined unlimited constitutional right of the President and is aimed at the formation mechanism of the implementation of its broad competence. Conclusion. The status is determined by the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Head of State, different legal diversity, it requires legislative harmonization and improvement of law enforcement.