Violation of constitutional rights. Features of the consideration of cases on the constitutionality of laws on complaints of violations of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens

11.11.2020

Federal Law No. 138-FZ of November 26, 1996
"On Ensuring the Constitutional Rights of Citizens Russian Federation to elect and be elected to bodies local government»

With changes and additions from:

June 22, 1998, July 21, 2005, February 2, July 12, 2006, November 9, 2009, December 28, 2013, June 4, 2014

On issues of local self-government, see the review of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation "Some issues of judicial practice in civil cases"

See comments to this Federal Law

This Federal Law establishes legal norms that ensure the exercise of the constitutional rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to elect and be elected to local self-government bodies in cases of violation of these rights.

For basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation, see Federal Law No. 67-FZ of June 12, 2002

President of Russian Federation

Legal norms are being established to ensure the exercise of the constitutional rights of citizens of the Russian Federation to elect and be elected to local self-government bodies in cases of their violation. Citizens are provided with legal grounds for protecting their rights in the absence of a law on elections, a charter of a municipal formation or an elected representative body of local self-government in the subject of the federation, if the procedure for the formation of municipalities has not been established in the subject of the federation, and also if the terms of office of elected bodies of local self-government have expired . The norms are listed, according to which municipalities must hold elections of deputies of representative bodies of local self-government or elected officials in a timely manner, including repeated or early elections.

A temporary regulation on holding elections of deputies of representative bodies of local self-government and elected officials in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is being approved. The federal law comes into force from the day of its official publication.

Federal Law No. 138-FZ of November 26, 1996 “On Ensuring the Constitutional Rights of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Elect and Be Elected to Local Self-Government Bodies”

This Federal Law shall enter into force on the day of its official publication.

This document has been modified by the following documents:

The amendments shall enter into force on the day of the official publication of the said Federal Law.

The amendments shall enter into force 10 days after the official publication of the said Federal Law.

The amendments shall enter into force on the day of the official publication of the said Federal Law.

Criminal liability for violation of equality of human and civil rights

According to Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the state guarantees the equality of human and civil rights and freedoms, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. Any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the specified grounds is prohibited. Men and women have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their realization.

Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal Law No. 420-FZ of December 7, 2011), which provides for criminal liability for discrimination, i.e. violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person and a citizen, depending on his gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations or any social groups, committed by a person using his official position.

The objects of this crime, along with the equality of rights and freedoms of a citizen, can be the honor, dignity of a person, his labor rights, freedom of religion and other rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in respect of which the equality of a person and a citizen is violated.

Discrimination can be expressed in dismissal from work (for example, when reducing jobs), denial of employment, non-enrollment in an educational institution or expulsion from it on the basis of nationality or gender, language, religious beliefs, giving preference to other people of a different nationality, gender , while an objectively different citizen had an advantage, and he had to be hired, studied. Discrimination may also consist in refusing to provide information, refusing to sell goods, perform work or provide services for the same reasons.

In case of discrimination, it is the signs of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property or official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, and not individual qualities that become the basis for resolving the relevant issue.

Criminal liability under this article entails only such infringement of the rights and legitimate interests of a person, which is committed on the basis of discrimination. Under Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, actions (inaction) committed, for example, out of selfish or other personal interest, cannot be qualified.

At the same time, the violation of the exercised constitutional rights of individuals can be considered as a fact of discrimination only in the case of intentional infringement of the rights of one person compared to another.
According to the previous legislation, the subject of this crime could be any person who has reached the age of 16. The use of one's official position was provided for in Part 2 of Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as a qualifying sign of this crime.

Currently, in connection with the amendments made to the criminal law by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 7, 2011 No. 420-FZ, actions and omissions committed only by a special subject - a person using his official position are criminally punishable. These can be both officials of state authorities or local governments or enterprises and organizations under their jurisdiction, as well as employees of non-state (commercial) institutions and enterprises with administrative or other managerial functions that allow them to infringe on the equality of citizens (for example, illegal appointments to higher positions of their fellow countrymen, the establishment of increased wage increments for employees of a certain nationality, etc.).

The consequence of the violation of equality may be the infringement of housing, labor, property, personal and public interests protected by criminal law. For example, on the grounds of discrimination, a person's right to safe working conditions may be violated, the freedom to choose a profession, and remuneration for work may be limited.

In accordance with Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the commission of actions and inactions expressed in violation of the equality of human and civil rights is punishable by a fine in the amount of one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand rubles or in the amount of the wage or other income of the convicted person for a period of one to two years, or deprivation of the right to borrow certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to five years, or compulsory labor for a term of up to four hundred and eighty hours, or correctional labor for a term of up to two years, or forced labor for a term of up to five years, or imprisonment for the same term.

Criminal cases on crimes under Art. 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are cases of public prosecution, can be initiated by the investigating authorities both on the basis of a statement from the victim, and a report on a crime received from other sources. A preliminary investigation into them is carried out by investigators of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the manner prescribed by law.

prokuratura-kirov.ru

ON VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ART. 320 Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR

WHEN IMPLEMENTING ART. 320 Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR
M.V. ANGELICA
Margarita Dudnik, lawyer of the St. Petersburg City Collegium.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation in Article 1 establishes that "the Russian Federation is a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government." One of the basic principles on which a democratic state is built is “the principle of the rule of law and the principle by virtue of which any person under its jurisdiction must enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 3 of the Charter of the Council of Europe).
The Constitution of the Russian Federation, as the Basic Law of the State, enshrines a number of important provisions relating to the rights of a person and a citizen of Russia:
“Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the duty of the state” (Article 2);
- “The Constitution of the Russian Federation has the highest legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the Russian Federation” (clause 1, article 15);
- “State authorities, local governments, officials, citizens and their associations are required to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws” (clause 2, article 15);
“The rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. They determine the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-government and are provided with justice” (Article 18);
- “Everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of his rights and freedoms” (paragraph 1 of article 46);
- “Decisions and actions (inaction) of state authorities, local governments, public associations and officials can be appealed to the court” (paragraph 2 of article 46);
- “No one can be deprived of the right to have his case considered in that court and by that judge, to whose jurisdiction it is assigned by law” (paragraph 1 of article 47);
- "Justice in the Russian Federation is carried out only by the court" (clause 1, article 118);
- “Judges are independent and subject only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law” (clause 1, article 120).
Thus, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, fixing the provision on its supremacy in the system of legislation and declaring the priority of human and civil rights and freedoms in the system of the state, establishes the most important rules that human rights are ensured by justice, that everyone has the right to judicial protection and that everyone has the right appeal to the court any decisions and actions (inaction) of public authorities.
In reality, Russian citizens do not have a real opportunity to exercise all the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
A striking example is the procedure for reviewing cases established by procedural codes by way of supervision, which limits the possibility of exercising the constitutional rights of citizens to judicial protection. As is known, the consideration of civil and criminal cases in courts of general jurisdiction is still carried out on the basis of the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, the main provisions of which were adopted in the "era of developed socialism" in 1964 and 1960. So, for example, in the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR there is section IV “Revision of decisions, definitions and decrees that have entered into force”, Art. 319 of which establishes the rule: “Decisions, rulings and resolutions of all courts of the RSFSR that have entered into legal force may be reviewed by way of judicial supervision on protests of officials listed in Article 320 of this Code.” Consequently, if we are guided by this rule, and the courts are guided by it, the citizens of Russia are deprived of the opportunity to independently apply to the courts considering cases by way of supervision. An intermediary, an official, is placed between the citizen and the court, who determines the degree of the need to bring a protest. At the same time, cases are not uncommon when an official is guided not by law, but by expediency. As a result, the rights of a citizen in Russia are not fully secured by justice. At the same time, in Section Two of the Constitution of the Russian Federation “Final and Transitional Provisions”, paragraph 2 states: “Laws and other legal acts that were in force on the territory of the Russian Federation before the entry into force of this Constitution are applied to the extent that they do not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation” . Consequently, the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR should be applied to the extent that it does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation. And if we remember that the Constitution of Russia has the highest legal force, then the right
in a citizen for protection by a court considering cases by way of supervision, should be ensured by the state through the adoption of new procedural codes, and before their adoption, i.e. before the legislator determines the procedure for filing a complaint and its consideration by the court, such complaints must be considered in accordance with the procedure for appealing against actions and decisions of state bodies and officials. The following argumentation can be given in favor of this assertion. In accordance with the Federal Law “On Appeal to the Court of Actions and Decisions Violating the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens” (applied in cases where a different procedure for appealing is not provided for by another law), a citizen has the right to file a complaint against actions (decisions) that violate his rights and freedoms , or directly to the court, or to a higher state body in order of subordination (part 1 of article 4). No other procedure for appeal by a citizen of a judicial act that has entered into legal force has been established. Moreover, there is no such order at all. Paragraph 2 of Art. 36 of the Federal Law "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation" fixes an important provision: "Courts considering cases by way of supervision are considered superior to the courts that have previously made decisions on the case." Consequently, in case of disagreement with the decision of the court of first instance or the ruling of the court of cassation, a citizen has the right to apply to a higher court - a court considering cases by way of supervision, in which his complaint must be considered on the merits within a month (part 2 of article 4 of the Federal Law " On Appeal to Court of Actions and Decisions Violating the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens. At the same time, the court considering cases by way of supervision is both a higher and a judicial body. Therefore, the supervisory court is obliged to consider the complaint in open court with the participation of the complainant (clause 1, article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and article 9 of the Federal Law “On the judicial system of the Russian Federation”). The current practice in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of considering a citizen’s complaint against judicial acts that have entered into legal force solely by one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation contradicts Part 2 of Art. 118 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, because such a procedure is not provided for in civil proceedings.
LINKS TO LEGAL ACTS

"CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"
(adopted by popular vote on 12/12/1993)
"CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RSFSR"
(approved by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR 10/27/1960)
"CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE OF RSFSR"
(approved by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR on 06/11/1964)
RF LAW dated April 27, 1993 N 4866-1
“ON APPEALS TO THE COURT OF ACTIONS AND DECISIONS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS AND
FREEDOM OF CITIZENS"
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW dated December 31, 1996 N 1-FKZ
"ON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION"
(approved by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on December 26, 1996)
"STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE" (ETS N 1)
(Adopted in London on May 5, 1949)
Lawyer, N 4, 2000

Violation of the constitutional rights of citizens of the Russian Federation

Navigation: Home Violation constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens as the basis of a constitutional complaint Violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens: concept and types. Permissibility of legal restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms

The Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the fullness of human and civil rights and freedoms, their inalienability and inadmissibility of restrictions. This guarantee follows from the constitutional recognition of rights and freedoms as inalienable and belonging to a person from birth (Part 2, Article 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). It is forbidden to issue laws that abolish or diminish the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen (part 2 of article 55). This prohibition applies to the rights and freedoms enshrined not only in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but also in international sources that are part of the Russian legal system. The constitutional norm also applies to by-laws.
When resolving the issue of filing a constitutional complaint, it is necessary to clearly determine whether there is a violation of rights and freedoms. If the applicant does not indicate in the constitutional complaint what the violation of his constitutional rights was, such a complaint will not be accepted for consideration.
Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refused to consider the complaint of Protsevskaya N.A., who tried to challenge the constitutionality of the unified state exam(USE). One of the grounds for refusing to accept the complaint for consideration was the fact that the applicant could not reasonably formulate her position on the violation of the constitutional right to protect the dignity of the individual. The applicant argued that the exam is a scientific experiment that is carried out on her without her consent, humiliates her human dignity, and also deprives her of the right to receive free of charge on a competitive basis higher education in a state or municipal educational institution. The applicant attached to the complaint only a copy of the certificate of the results of the Unified State Examination, confirming that in 2008 she had passed it. Documents that would indicate that the applicant filed an appeal about a violation of the established procedure for conducting the Unified State Examination in a general education subject and (or) disagreement with the points given, as well as that she made an attempt to enter an educational institution of higher professional education, she did not were introduced.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of December 16, 2008 N 1088-O-O on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Protsevskaya Natalya Alexandrovna about the violation of her constitutional rights by the Federal Law "On Amendments to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Education" and the Federal Law " On Higher and Postgraduate Vocational Education" in terms of conducting a unified state exam", Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation "On the organization of an experiment on the introduction of a unified state exam" and Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The document has not been officially published.

Violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen - actions or inaction of the authorities, expressed in the creation of obstacles to the normal course of human life, non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution on the rights and freedoms of the individual.
The types of violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen by law include:

unlawful restriction of rights and freedoms;
creating obstacles to the exercise of a right or freedom;

- deprivation of right or freedom.
The Constitutional Court, recognizing the unconstitutionality of one or another provision of the law, always indicates in what concrete way the violation of rights and freedoms manifested itself.
Thus, the Constitutional Court considered the unconstitutionality of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which material evidence in the form of objects that, due to bulkiness or other reasons, cannot be stored in a criminal case, including large consignments of goods, the storage of which is difficult or the costs of ensuring special storage conditions for which are commensurate with their value, are transferred for sale on the basis of a decision of the interrogating officer, investigator or judge. The owner actually lost his property. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation noted that the seizure of property without a court decision is permissible only if such seizure as a procedural measure is temporary, does not lead to deprivation of a person's right to property and involves subsequent judicial control. The measure established by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides for the alienation of property rather than temporary seizure. The alienation of property seized as material evidence in a criminal case is impossible without a court decision.

Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 16, 2008 N 9-P on the case of checking the constitutionality of the provisions of Art. 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of citizen V.V. Kostylev.

Constitutional complaints often do not disclose the content of the violation of the applicant's right by the challenged law.
Sometimes the Applicant, referring to the violation of his rights, actually raises the issue of expanding the scope of the contested norm in relation to himself.
For example, in the case on the calculation of the length of service when assigning a pension to military personnel, the Court pointed out that the establishment by the Government of the Russian Federation of preferential conditions for crediting the length of service for calculating pensions for certain categories of military personnel during their training before determining the military service in civilian higher educational institutions or in secondary specialized educational institutions in itself cannot be considered as a violation of the right to social security. This category of educational institutions does not include Suvorov military schools, Nakhimov naval schools and military music schools. The court stated the desire of the applicant Yu.V. Abramov to require the Court to include Suvorov schools in the list of educational institutions, the period of study in which is included in the length of service for the purpose of assigning pensions to military personnel. In other words, the Applicant has actually raised the issue of expanding the scope of the contested norm in terms of a circle of persons.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 24, 2005 N 214-O on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Yury Vladimirovich Abramov about the violation of his constitutional rights para. 1 p. 2 of the Decree of the Council of Ministers - the Government of the Russian Federation "On the procedure for calculating length of service, assigning and paying pensions and benefits to persons who have served in the military as officers, warrant officers, midshipmen and servicemen of extended service or under a contract as soldiers, sailors, sergeants and foremen or service in the internal affairs bodies, institutions and bodies of the penitentiary system, and their families in the Russian Federation. The document has not been officially published.

The Constitutional Court refuses applicants who arbitrarily refer to articles of the Constitution.
Thus, in a complaint against the Law of the City of Moscow “On establishing responsibility for violating the Rules for using the Moscow Metro”, the applicant argued that the Moscow City Duma intruded into the competence of the Federal Assembly, establishing administrative liability for unpaid passage outside the checkpoints in the form of a warning or a fine of up to 50 a multiple of the fare in the subway, as a result of which they were violated Art. Art. 1, 2, 4, 5, 15 - 18, 21, 23, 27, 35, part 3 of Art. 55, paragraph "k" part 1 of Art. 72, part 2 and 5 of Art. 76 of the Constitution.
In refusing to accept the complaint for consideration, the Constitutional Court noted that the complaint did not indicate which constitutional rights and freedoms belonging to him were violated by the normative act establishing administrative liability for attempting to travel free of charge in the subway in the absence of the right to do so, but the list of articles cited by the applicant The Constitution of the Russian Federation is arbitrary. Essentially, the complaint challenges the competence of the Moscow City Duma in the area of administrative law.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 4, 1998 N 82-O on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Puzanov Igor Fridrikhovich about the violation of his constitutional rights by the provisions of the Law of Moscow "On establishing responsibility for violating the Rules for using the Moscow Metro". The document has not been officially published.

The Court considered a similar case in 2003. The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the provision of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, according to which controllers - auditors, ticket inspectors, other authorized employees of intercity passenger transport have the right to consider cases of administrative offenses on behalf of motor transport authorities. The Ruling in this case states: “The disputed legal provision does not in itself violate any of the applicant's constitutional rights. Link to Art. 3 (part 2) of the Constitution, which proclaims a general principle relating to the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, is arbitrary.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 7, 2003 N 51-O on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Berg Oleg Viktorovich about the violation of his constitutional rights, Part 2 of Art. 23.37 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. The document has not been published.

In some cases, the Court has noted that the challenged provisions do not affect any constitutional rights at all. For example, when challenging the Regulations on Qualification Boards of Judges, the applicant argued that it allows the Qualification Board of Judges, when considering a citizen's complaint, not to evaluate the actions of a judge, thereby violating the rights of citizens to judicial protection and a fair trial. The court pointed out that the contested norms in themselves do not affect any constitutional rights and freedoms and cannot be considered as violating the applicant's right to a fair trial, since they do not prevent him from challenging an unlawful and, from his point of view, unjustified court decision in the manner established by procedural law.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 20, 2007 N 55-О-О on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Nikolai Petrovich Glushkov on violation of his constitutional rights, Art. 22 of the Federal Law "On Bodies of the Judicial Community in the Russian Federation" and Art. 4 Regulations on qualified collegiums of judges. The document has not been officially published.

The rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen cannot be unlimited due to the fact that a person lives in a society of people who also have rights and freedoms. The Constitution enshrines the general principle of respect for other people's rights and freedoms, based on the fact that each person has not only rights, but also duties. In case of violation of the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen, the state contributes to their restoration, holds the offender accountable.
In modern conditions, social, political, interethnic tension is growing not only in Russian society, but also in the world community; the problem of terrorism is extremely acute, having a transnational character and threatening stability in the world; cases of natural and man-made emergencies are becoming more frequent. All these circumstances stimulate the introduction of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, aimed at the benefit of both the whole society and its individuals. Lawful restrictions are not a violation of human rights, discrimination, other violations of human and civil rights and freedoms; they represent a reduction in the volume of rights and freedoms granted in accordance with the requirements of real life. They have a constitutional basis aimed at ensuring a reasonable balance between public and private interests, meet the principles of justice and are due to objective reasons.
In the case of citizen A.V. Efanov, who challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation, according to which convicts sentenced to deprivation of liberty can be involved without pay in the performance of work on the improvement of correctional institutions and adjacent territories, the Constitutional Court did not see violations in the restrictions on the rights of convicts. The court pointed out that the status of convicts implies the need for them to comply with the rules adopted in society, creating the basis for establishing the obligation of convicts to ensure proper order, including compliance with the rules of sanitation and hygiene, in their places of residence and work. Ensuring these rules implies the obligatory performance by convicts of work related to the improvement of places where they serve their sentences, which, as follows from Art. 2 of the ILO Convention of June 28, 1930 N 29 regarding forced or compulsory labor and Art. 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950, cannot be regarded as forced or compulsory labor, since communal work performed for the direct benefit of the collective by members of this collective is considered their ordinary civil duties. The involvement of convicts in the manner prescribed by law in this kind of work cannot be regarded as an arbitrary imposition of additional duties on them, since, by imposing a sentence of imprisonment on the convicted, the court thereby predetermines the need and possibility of using as one of the main means of correcting convicts their involvement in socially useful work.
Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 23, 2005 N 296-O on the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen Efanov Alexander Valentinovich about the violation of his constitutional rights, Art. 106 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The document has not been officially published.
However, none of the human and civil rights proclaimed in the Constitution can be withdrawn by the state or arbitrarily limited in scope. The term "limitation of the right (freedom) by law" means the establishment by law of the limits (boundaries) of the exercise by a citizen of rights and freedoms, expressed in the establishment of prohibitions, duties, responsibilities, and other forms of intrusion of state power into private life. The very word "limit" in the dictionaries of the Russian language is defined as restricting by certain conditions, putting within some boundaries, limiting, reducing to something (opportunities, activities, etc.), narrowing down (opportunities, rights, etc.). ), put in a frame, put a limit on something.

For a detailed analysis of the concept of “restrictions” from the point of view of the general theory of law, see: Malko A.V. Incentives and restrictions in law. Theoretical-informational aspect. Saratov, 1994.
See: Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. M., 1986. S. 305.
At the same time, not every restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms is recognized as their violation and declared unconstitutional. Only arbitrary restrictions on rights and freedoms are unacceptable.

According to part 3 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen may be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality, health, rights and legitimate interests of others, to ensure the defense of the country and the security of the state. Thus, the existence of restrictions is predetermined by the need to protect constitutionally recognized values in order to ensure the necessary balance between the interests of the individual, society and the state. In the understanding of the constitutionality of restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms great importance has an interpretation by the Constitutional Court of Part 3 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which establishes the criteria for the lawful restriction of human rights.

New in blogs

Violation of constitutional human rights in Russia.

The constitution is not the basic law of the state, but a collection of human rights that must be violated

We are told all the time that we live in a state of law based on the observance of the rule of law and complete freedom of the individual. Let's see together how and in what way constitutional human rights are violated. Let's look not as political scientists, sociologists and jurists, and certainly not as human rights activists, but as ordinary citizens of Russia, who exactly you and I are.

What will we be guided by and how to consider violation of constitutional human rights here in Russia? Logic is inherent in every person and it is common to draw conclusions from facts, so let's do this, together, we will take an article of the constitution, compare it with facts and draw a conclusion whether the fundamental law of Russia is violated or not, constitutional human rights are violated or not.

Can the constitution of Russia be changed? The unequivocal answer is no, and not by any additions or amendments adopted by legislators, the same constitution speaks about this - Article 135,
Chapter 9 - Constitutional amendments and revision of the Constitution. It states that if there is a desire to change Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the constitution, a Constitutional Assembly must be convened and a popular vote must be taken when deciding to change these chapters. Why am I pointing this out at this point? And so that there is no desire for someone to say that they say additions and changes were added to Chapter 2 of the constitution. Who could add it, that state criminal - to his prison for a long time, for violating the basic law of the state and adopting any amendments to Chapter 2 of the constitution without a popular vote.

And so we established that Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is unshakable, incomplete, invariable without a popular vote. And now let's move on to the analysis of Chapter 2 of the constitution itself.

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

Article 17

1. The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.

2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.

3. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Analysis: We agree that this article, let's say not violated because too general concepts. But the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed, and whether these guarantees are fulfilled is another question.

Article 18

The rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. They determine the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-government and are provided with justice.

Analysis: Does justice ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens? The answer is simple - read about the violations committed by law enforcement agencies, courts and the legislative and executive authorities, and as a conclusion - this article of the constitution is being violated. The guarantors of the constitution themselves do not enforce it.

Article 19

1. Everyone is equal before the law and the court.

2. The state guarantees the equality of human and civil rights and freedoms regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances. Any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation is prohibited.

3. A man and a woman have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their realization.

Analysis: 1 Everyone is not equal before the court - violated. Maybe someone will argue that the son of the mayor will sit down for a fight that he himself started and in which his nose was bloodied? No, the one who defended his honor and dignity will sit down.

2 But the second part is nonsense - everyone is equal before the law, regardless of property and official status. Yes, for sure, you tell this to those who were hit by the car of a boss or a big businessman, who lost in court a case that is absolutely clear to everyone, but not to a fair judge. This means that paragraph 2 of Article 19 is also violated.

3 Well, we will not argue about gender equality, we will decide - it is not violated. Everything rests again on point 2, what position a man or woman occupies. If it is the daughter of the chairman of the electoral committee of the region who knocked down a mother with children, then this is normal, but if she is beaten (by a man), let's say, by the governor's son, then she is to blame, and he is right. Equality among equals, in a word, and inequality among unequals, a pun directly, and not the observance of the constitution.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to life.

2. Until its abolition, the death penalty may be established by federal law as an exceptional measure of punishment for especially grave crimes against life, provided that the accused has the right to have his case heard by a jury.

Analysis: Yes, everyone has the right to life, but to a very different one. The death penalty is not carried out - this is also indisputable. The general conclusion is that this article is not violated.

Article 21

1. The dignity of the individual is protected by the state. Nothing can be grounds for belittling him.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture, violence, other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.

Analysis: 1 How does our state protect dignity? How, how, and if you don’t know, then go to an unauthorized rally and there they will explain to you with a baton on the back.

2. Read about torture, violence and other cruelties in official sources on violations of our law enforcement officers and what is it for them, what punishment is a reprimand if a serious scandal is kicked out of law enforcement officers for half a year. Are medical experiments being conducted on us? The answer will be given by mothers of babies who died from experimental vaccines and affected patients on whom the doctor tested imported medicine, well, not for free, of course, pharmacists feed doctors very generously. The final conclusion is that Article 21 is violated in full.

Article 22

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

2. Arrest, detention and detention are allowed only by a court decision. Pending a court decision, a person may not be detained for more than 48 hours.

Analysis: In general, briefly - in 48 hours it is necessary to knock out testimony and confessions in all crimes that a person did not commit. You have seen how the constitution is being implemented - if you are not a weakling and do not break in 48 hours - they will release you, go for a walk, kid - you are free.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of his honor and good name.

2. Everyone has the right to privacy of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraphic and other communications. Restriction of this right is allowed only on the basis of a court decision.

Analysis: Here, the leaders in maintaining family secrets and confidentiality are hospitals. Half of the regional center will know tomorrow that the unmarried Manya is pregnant, just go to the reception, this is the same as putting an ad in the newspaper. Or who doesn’t know the situation Vanya passed the test, and he has a venereal disease, of course everyone will know about it in 5 minutes, and Vanya caught it in a domestic way, runs to his wife and yells, you know what. The family is breaking up, but maybe the wife would have believed if there hadn't been publicity, but here, well, how to live with a traitor, she also believes that he cheated. The general conclusion - in secret to the whole world, all private life - the article is violated. If you want all your friends to know about your health problems, do not write an ad in the newspaper - go to the hospital, you may not be cured, but they will tell the whole world how seriously ill you are.

Article 24

1. Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person without his consent is not allowed.

2. Bodies of state power and bodies of local self-government, their officials are obliged to provide everyone with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with documents and materials that directly affect their rights and freedoms, unless otherwise provided by law.

Analysis The same as in the previous article, plus the fact that some documents from administrations of any level can only be obtained by a court decision, and the court may even decide that it does not concern you, on the basis of which 3-4 acres were sawn off from your garden. The article is violated without a doubt.

Without a doubt, it is possible to analyze all 64 articles of Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and everywhere we will find violations. See which of our rights are not being violated. Yes, violations go on the list from Article 17 to Article 64, with rare exceptions, mainly due to the vagueness of the wording.

Let's look at a couple more articles, well, very relevant, which are not just violated, but violated maliciously and deliberately.

Article 28

Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and act in accordance with them.

Analysis: Suppose I am a convinced atheist, without any malicious intent and kindling something there, I say that all priests, mullahs, rabbis, satanists are obscurantists who rob the already impoverished population. Well, you see, I have such convictions and at the same time I respect people who believe, well, if they remain in my understanding at all. Judging by the actions of people, you can’t tell who is now fulfilling the commandments of their gods, by the way, very good commandments. Well, that means I'm violating the law on incitement to religious hatred. So I do not urge Orthodox Muslims and Jews to fight, I urge not to be mistaken not to believe in this prehistoric savagery. But it wasn’t there, I undermine faith with my statements all at once, and the authorities and the oligarchs need it so much, because it’s conveniently hit on the cheek - turn the other one, any government is sent by God. So the president comes out and prays in a synagogue or an Orthodox church - he is good, and I say that he has no faith in either God or hell or Allah, and even more so in people, I am an instigator of religious hatred. And what should I do if I am a militant atheist and really believe that believers are mistaken, allowing all sorts of crooks to manage them like a herd. The state does not care about my freedom of conscience. Well, you can write a treatise on the propaganda of religion of all kinds, there is definitely pressure at the state level, believing is good, not believing means inciting some kind of discord, well, we have a lot of incitement. He said that you are Russian, not a Russian, and you are already a nationalist, let's say the boy put on a T-shirt with the inscription "I am Russian" everything, he is almost a fascist. Well, we have such freedom of conscience and religion.

And now, the wonderful Article 31 of the constitution, so to speak, for dessert.

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing.

Analysis: Are you still able to read everything with our guaranteed free education? Well, then, who will read to me here that before going to a rally or demonstration without weapons, you need some kind of permission or sanction from some kind of administration? Here and I don't see any permissions required. So why do they get these permits? Perhaps no one has read the constitution? No, many have read it. So what's happening to us? And we just got used to the fact that the constitution is no longer a law in Russia, that anyone can violate constitutional human rights.

Well, on this life-affirming note, let me finish our reflections on the violation of constitutional rights, on the violation of all human rights in general. So what kind of state are we talking about? About the legal, well, whoever thinks that he lives in a legal free state - read your rights written in the constitution and compare with the current state of affairs. Can someone say that this is all a preconceived notion? Now tell me, is it possible to be both a free man and a slave at the same time? The second question is – have many of you not taken a loan from a bank? From what I know, very few, isn't that banking slavery? And who gave the right to usurers to rip off the already impoverished population, and no one, did not find such an article in the constitution. This is how we get it according to concepts, and we live not according to the constitution, but according to concepts. Our state is an oligarchic and mafia structure - a vertical for the suppression of freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, in general, any freedom in any manifestation. What can we say about the violation of human rights or the violation of the constitution. The law is always the same - the mafia is always right.

Federal Law of February 23, 1995 N 26-FZ "On natural healing resources, health-improving areas and resorts" (as amended and supplemented) Federal Law of February 23, 1995 N 26-FZ "On natural healing […]

An approximate form of the order on the creation of a commission for the acceptance, commissioning and write-off of fixed assets (prepared by the experts of the Garant company) The order for the creation of a commission for the acceptance, commissioning and write-off of fixed assets […]

Federal Law of May 2, 2006 N 59-FZ "On the Procedure for Considering Appeals from Citizens of the Russian Federation" (as amended) Federal Law of May 2, 2006 N 59-FZ "On the Procedure for Considering Appeals from Citizens of the Russian […]

Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of October 27, 2016 No. 803n "On Amendments to the Rules for Compulsory Medical Insurance, approved by order of the Ministry of Health and social development Russian […]

So let's get started:

Can it be changed Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen Russian constitution? The unequivocal answer is no, and not by any additions or amendments adopted by legislators, the same constitution speaks about this - Article 135,
Chapter 9 - Constitutional amendments and revision of the Constitution. It states that if there is a desire to change Chapters 1, 2 and 9 of the constitution, a Constitutional Assembly must be convened and a popular vote must be taken when deciding to change these chapters. Why am I pointing this out at this point? And so that there is no desire for someone to say that they say additions and changes were added to Chapter 2 of the constitution. Who could add it, that state criminal - to his prison for a long time, for violating the basic law of the state and adopting any amendments to Chapter 2 of the constitution without a popular vote.

Chapter 2. Rights and freedoms of man and citizen

Article 17

2. Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.

3. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms must not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons.

Analysis: We agree that this article, let's say not violated because it's too general. But the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are recognized and guaranteed, and whether these guarantees are fulfilled is another question.

Article 18

Article 19

1. Everyone is equal before the law and the court.

3. A man and a woman have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities for their realization.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to life.

Article 21

1. The dignity of the individual is protected by the state. Nothing can be grounds for belittling him.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture, violence, other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.

Analysis: 1 How does our state protect dignity? How, how, and if you don’t know, then go to an unauthorized rally and there they will explain to you with a baton on the back.

Article 22

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

2. Arrest, detention and detention are allowed only by a court decision. Pending a court decision, a person may not be detained for more than 48 hours.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, protection of his honor and good name.

Article 24

1. Collection, storage, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person without his consent is not allowed.

Let's look at a couple more articles, well, very relevant, which are not just violated, but violated maliciously and deliberately.

Article 28

And now, the wonderful Article 31 of the constitution, so to speak, for dessert.

Article 31

Citizens of the Russian Federation have the right to assemble peacefully without weapons, to hold meetings, rallies and demonstrations, marches and picketing.

To the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Email: ________________

Applicant: _________________________
Address: _______________________
Tel: ________________

A COMPLAINT
For violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of man and citizen By order of the head of the UVO at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow, militia colonel ______________ dated ___________, No. ____ l / s, by the decision of the Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow dated _______

I am born ____________________ __________ Until ________, he was an employee of the Office of Private Security at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of the city of Moscow and served in the rank of senior police lieutenant as an inspector of service of the 7th linear department of the 7th police department.
In _____, the head of the personnel department of the UVO at the Main Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, police major ___________, in violation of my constitutional rights and current legislation, in every possible way forced me to undergo state fingerprint registration. After I gave ____________ a fully justified refusal to undergo fingerprint registration, with references to the legislative norms that I was guided by, I was fired under clause “l” of Art. 19 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Police" for gross violation of discipline (Order of the head of the UVO at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow, police colonel ____________ dated _________ No. _____).
So, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ "On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation" state fingerprint registration is carried out in compliance with the rights and freedoms of man and citizen established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the principles of legality, humanism, confidentiality, a combination of voluntariness and obligation.

In accordance with Art. 9 of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ “On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation”, citizens of the Russian Federation serving in internal affairs bodies are subject to mandatory state fingerprint registration.
The order of the head of the UVO at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow, militia colonel ____________ dated __________, No. ________ was appealed by the All-Russian political movement "In support of the army, defense industry and military science" to the Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow.
By the decision of the judge __________ of the Lyublinsky District Court of the City of Moscow dated ___________, it was refused to recognize the above Order on dismissal as illegal, to cancel it, to reinstate the provision of all types of allowance, and to grant leave.
Disagreeing with the Judgment me and the all-Russian political movement “In support of the army, defense industry and military science” filed cassation complaints with the Moscow City Court, but by the Ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Moscow City Court dated __________, both cassation complaints were dismissed, and the court decision first instance without change.
After me and the all-Russian political movement "In support of the army, defense industry and military science" supervisory complaints were filed, but they were also left without satisfaction.

At the same time, the court of first and subsequent instances committed gross violations of my constitutional rights. When the order was issued by the head of the UVO at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow, militia colonel _____________ dated __________, No. _______, and after that the court misinterpreted the norms of the Federal Law "On State Fingerprint Registration", their correlation with the Constitution of the Russian Federation was not carried out.
After my dismissal, I turned for help and clarification to the Deputy of the State Duma - ________________, who, in response to my application dated __________, No. ___________, said the following.

As I mentioned earlier, in accordance with Art. 4 of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ "On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation" state fingerprint registration is carried out in compliance with the rights and freedoms of man and citizen established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, in accordance with the principles of legality, humanism, confidentiality, a combination of voluntariness and obligation.
Carrying out state fingerprint registration should not pose a danger to human health, humiliate his honor and dignity.

Thus, if ____________. voluntarily did not want, for some reason, to undergo mandatory state fingerprint registration, then no one has the right to force him, to subject him to mandatory state fingerprint registration, because otherwise it already becomes compulsory, and not mandatory, which will be a violation of the principles of legality, humanism , and, most importantly, voluntariness, since it is impossible to force him to undergo the specified registration without humiliating his honor and dignity. Moreover, the dismissal of ___________ for this reason is illegal, since it, under the circumstances described above, is an unconditional violation of Art. 1,2,6 (part 2), 15-18,21,22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Art. 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation The Russian Federation - Russia is a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government.
In accordance with Art. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the duty of the state.
In accordance with Art. 6 (part 2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, every citizen of the Russian Federation has all the rights and freedoms on its territory and bears equal obligations stipulated by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
In accordance with Art. 15 The Constitution of the Russian Federation has the highest legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
State authorities, local self-government bodies, officials, citizens and their associations are obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and laws.
In accordance with Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation The Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.
Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth.
In accordance with Art. 18 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable. They determine the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-government and are provided with justice.
In accordance with Art. 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the dignity of the individual is protected by the state. Nothing can be grounds for belittling him.
No one shall be subjected to torture, violence, other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. No one can be subjected to medical, scientific or other experiments without voluntary consent.
In accordance with Art. 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to freedom and personal inviolability.

Giving an interpretation of the content of the requirements of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ “On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation”, __________ was guided not so much by the practice of its application, but by the real meaning inherent in it. ___________ was directly involved in the development of this Federal Law and in his response gave it an authentic interpretation.
It should be noted that the decision of the court of first instance contains only references to the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ “On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation”, without the necessary correlation with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, in accordance with Art. 3 of the Federal Law of July 25, 1998 N 128-FZ “On State Fingerprint Registration in the Russian Federation”, the legal basis for state fingerprint registration is the Constitution of the Russian Federation, this Federal Law, other federal laws, other regulatory legal acts of federal state bodies adopted in accordance with them authorities, as well as generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties of the Russian Federation.

The Court sees no difference between the words "mandatory" and "compulsory".
I, as an employee of the internal affairs bodies, was “subject to” mandatory fingerprint registration, which implies my ability to pass it on an oral application and at the same time, the duty of the police to carry it out, in contrast to voluntary fingerprint registration, where a written application is required. This is precisely the combination of the principle of voluntariness and obligation.
In reality, it turns out that I, as a police officer, was put on a par with persons recognized by the court as criminals. The principle of voluntariness of obligation was perverted so much that it turned into the principle of coercion and punitiveness.
I, like any citizen of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Art. 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, I have the right to personal inviolability, which implies the inadmissibility of any outside interference in the area of individual life of a person and includes physical (bodily) integrity and mental integrity.
Ensuring the physical integrity of the individual involves the creation of sufficient state guarantees against any encroachment on life, health, sexual integrity, freedom of physical activity both on the part of the state represented by its bodies and officials, and on the part of individual citizens.
Ensuring mental integrity covers a set of measures aimed at protecting the mental and moral health of the individual, the intellectual and volitional spheres of human consciousness from encroachments (Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation. General version by Yu.V. Kudryavtsev - M .: Legal Culture Foundation, 1996-552 With.).
Moreover, in accordance with Art. 2, 5 of the "Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials" (Adopted on 12/17/1979 by Resolution 34/169 at the 106th plenary session of the UN General Assembly) in the performance of their duties, law enforcement officials respect and protect human dignity and uphold and protect the rights person in relation to all persons.
No law enforcement official may carry out, incite or tolerate any act that constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

In accordance with Art. 36 of the Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 N 1-FKZ “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”, the reason for the consideration of the case in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is an appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the form of a request, petition or complaint that meets the requirements of this Federal constitutional law.
The basis for the consideration of the case is the revealed uncertainty in the question of whether the Constitution of the Russian Federation corresponds to a law, other normative act, an agreement between state authorities that has not entered into force an international agreement, or a contradiction in the positions of the parties on the ownership of powers in disputes about competence, or the revealed uncertainty in understanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, or the State Duma accusing the President of the Russian Federation of high treason or committing another grave crime.

In my opinion, the Order of the Head of the UVO at the Main Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, Colonel of Militia ____________ dated __________, No. ______ and the Decision of the Lyublinsky District Court of Moscow dated ________ are illegal and run counter to generally accepted interpretations of the Constitutional rights and freedoms of a person. In both cases, there is uncertainty in understanding the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and therefore they are subject to verification.
So, in accordance with Art. 38 of the Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 N 1-FKZ “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”, I can attach to my complaint a list of persons (witnesses and experts) whom it is proposed to summon to a session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Using my right, I ask to summon to the session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Deputy - lawyer ___________________.

Based on the foregoing and guided by the constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ of July 21, 1994 “On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”

1. Recognize as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation the Order of the Head of the UVO at the Main Department of Internal Affairs of Moscow, Colonel of Militia _____________ of __________, No. _________ and the Decision of the Lyublinsky District Court of the City of Moscow of ___________;

Application:
1. Receipt of payment of the state fee;
2. A copy of the Order of the head of the UVO at the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of Moscow, militia colonel ______________ dated ____________, No. ______;
3. A copy of the Decision of the Lyublinsky District Court of the City of Moscow dated ____________;
4. A copy of the letter of the Deputy ____________ dated _________, No. _________;
5. List of persons to be summoned to a session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation;

« »______________2014 _________________/______________

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation composed of Chairman V.D. Zorkin, judges N.S. Bondar, G.A. Gadzhieva, Yu.M. Danilova, L.M. Zharkova, G.A. Zhilina, S.M. Kazantseva, M.I. Kleandrov, A.L. Kononova, L.O. Krasavchikova, S.P. Mavrina, N.V. Melnikova, Yu.D. Rudkina, N.V. Selezneva, A.Ya. Plums, V.G. Strekozova, O.S. Khokhryakova, B.S. Ebzeeva, V.G. Yaroslavtsev,

Having considered, at the request of citizen E. Murzin, the question of the possibility of accepting his complaint for consideration in a session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, he established:

1. By the decision of the Ostankinsky District Court of the City of Moscow dated February 15, 2005, citizen E. Murzin was denied satisfaction of the demand to recognize as illegal the decision of the registry office to refuse to register a marriage with citizen E.A. Mishin. The court pointed out that in this case there was not (and could not be) observed one of the conditions for marriage stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, namely, the mutual voluntary consent of the man and woman entering into marriage. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision.

In his complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, E. Murzin disputes the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation. According to the applicant, being the basis for refusing to register a marriage between persons of the same sex, it violates the rights guaranteed by Articles 17-19 and 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the applicant refers to the experience of a number of European countries that recognize marriage or registered partnership of persons of the same sex.

The Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in accordance with paragraph two of Article 40 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", previously notified the applicant that his complaint did not meet the requirements of the said Federal Constitutional Law.

2. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having studied the materials submitted by E. Murzin, finds no grounds for accepting his complaint for consideration.

2.1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that the Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 17, part 1), state protection and support of the family, motherhood, fatherhood are provided and childhood (Article 7, Part 2; Article 38, Part 1), while caring for and raising children is an equal right and duty of parents (Article 38, Part 2).

These provisions are in a systemic relationship with the norms of international treaties that oblige the state and society to protect the family as a natural and basic unit of society, a natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members, especially children, including in the formation of a family, while its responsibility lies care for dependent children and their upbringing (paragraph 3 of article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, paragraph 1 of article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the preamble of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 20, 1989, etc.).

Thus, both the Constitution of the Russian Federation and international legal norms proceed from the fact that one of the purposes of the family is the birth and upbringing of children.

Considering the foregoing, as well as national traditions regarding marriage as a biological union of a man and a woman, the Family Code of the Russian Federation indicates that regulation family relations carried out in accordance, in particular, with the principles of voluntary marriage between a man and a woman, the priority of family upbringing of children, concern for their well-being and development (Article 1). Thus, the federal legislator, within the framework of the competence granted to him, attributed the mutual voluntary consent of a man and a woman to the conditions for concluding a marriage, which cannot be considered a violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms listed in the complaint.

2.2. While formally challenging the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, the applicant actually demands state recognition of his relationship with another man by registering them as a special union protected by the state.

Meanwhile, neither the Constitution of the Russian Federation, nor the international legal obligations assumed by the Russian Federation imply the obligation of the state to create conditions for propaganda, support and recognition of unions of persons of the same sex, while the absence of such registration in itself does not affect the level of recognition and guarantees in the Russian Federation of the rights and freedoms of the applicant as a person and citizen.

It does not indicate a violation of the applicant's constitutional rights and the presence in a number of European countries of a different approach to resolving demographic and social issues, especially since, by virtue of Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to marry and the right to found a family is recognized specifically for men and women, and article 12 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms expressly provides for the possibility of founding a family in accordance with national legislation governing the exercise of this right.

Based on the foregoing and guided by part two of Article 40, paragraph 2 of part one of Article 43, part one of Article 79, Articles 96 and 97 of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation determined:

1. Refuse to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen E. Murzin, since it does not meet the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", according to which the complaint is recognized as admissible.

2. The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on this complaint is final and not subject to appeal.

Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 N 496-O “On the refusal to accept for consideration the complaint of citizen E. Murzin about the violation of his constitutional rights by paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation”