Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the content of Part 3 Art. 32 of the Constitution, which enshrines the prohibition citizens held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court sentence to participate in the electoral process. The author highlights some features of electoral rights formulated in the decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated July 4, 2013 in the case "Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russian Federation": the right to vote is not a privilege; presumption in favour of inclusion (universal suffrage should be the main principle); the availability of good and compelling reasons for restrictions of the electoral rights of prisoners. The author considers the legal position laid down in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of April 19, 2016 No12-P regarding the applicability of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The article analyses foreign practice of dealing with similar cases: United States Supreme Court decision in "Richardson v. Ramirez" (1974); the practice of the Supreme Court of Canada ("Belczowski v. the Queen", 1991; "Sovje case", 2002); the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of South Africa in "August and others v. Electoral Commission, and others"(1999); the practice of the Supreme Court of India ("Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) v. UOI Ors&." 2004; "Rama Prasad Sarkar v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors., 2011). The author considers in detail the reasons for a series of rulings by the European Court of human rights, preceding the decision against the Russian Federation (the case of "Hirst v. United Kingdom", 2005; "Frodl' Prouty Austria", 2010; "Skoppola v. Italy", 2011). The author supports the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the non-applicability of the judgement of the European Court of human rights in the Russian Federation due to contradictions presented by interpreting the provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Highlights

  • Однако «второе дыхание» приведенной проблематике дало принятое Европейским Судом по правам человека ... постановление от 4 июля 2013 г. по делу «Анчугов и Гладков против Российской Федерации»

  • This paper presents an analysis of the content of Part 3 Art. 32 of the Constitution, which enshrines the prohibition citizens held in places of deprivation of liberty by a court sentence to participate in the electoral process

  • Canada (1993) — Voting Rights for Prisoners // URL: http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/rulings/

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Конституционный Суд РФ признал исполнение постановления ЕСПЧ по делу «Анчугов и Гладков против Российской Федерации» в части мер общего характера, предполагающих внесение изменений в российское законодательство (и тем самым изменение основанной на нем судебной практики), которые позволяли бы ограничивать в избирательных правах не всех осужденных, отбывающих наказание в местах лишения свободы по приговору суда, — невозможным. Что постановление ЕСПЧ могло быть признано исполнимым на территории России: «Следовательно, в случае если бы федеральный законодатель, предоставив части граждан, содержащихся в местах лишения свободы по приговору суда, активное или пассивное избирательное право, сузил бы ограничение избирательных прав, установленное частью 3 статьи 32 Конституции Российской Федерации, то такое правовое регулирование не могло бы быть признано нарушающим Конституцию Российской Федерации».

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call