RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of February 5, 2007 No. 2-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of provisions of Articles 16, 20, 112, 336, 376, 377, 380, 381, 382, 383, 387, 388 and 389 Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with request of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan, claims of Nizhnekamskneftekhim and Khakasenergo open joint stock companies, and also claims of number of citizens

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, judges N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, G. A. Zhilin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, N. V. Seleznyov, A.YA. Plums, V. G. Strekozov, O. S. Hokhryakova, B. S. Ebzeev, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

with participation of citizens of M.-C. A. Abakarov, A. D. Ishchenko, A. A. Maslov, A. I. Maslov, S. V. Ponomareva, O. S. Poludo, E. A. Sizikov, the representative of citizens S. P. Savelyev and R. P. Savelyeva - the lawyer E. A. Gataullin, the representative of JSC Khakasenergo and the citizen N. R. Gilmutdinov, - the lawyer N. V. Zhikharev, representatives of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan and JSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim - lawyers M. G. Raskin and A. R. Sultanov, the permanent representative of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation E. B. Mizulina, the representative of the Federation Council - the doctor of jurisprudence E. V. Vinogradova, the plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation M. V. Krotov,

being guided by Article 125 (the Item "and" of part 2 and part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, the subitem "an" of Item 1 and Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Articles 36, 74, 84, 85, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",

considered in open session case on check of constitutionality of provisions of Articles 16, of 20, of 112, of 336, of 376, of 377, of 380, of 381, of 382, of 383, of 387, 388 and 389 GPK of the Russian Federation.

Reason for consideration of the case were the request of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan, the claim of JSC Nizhnekamskneftekhim, JSC Khakasenergo, citizens of M.-C. A. Abakarov, A. V. Andriyanova, I. Zh. Gafiyatullin, N. R. Gilmutdinov, D.E. Zaugarov, A. D. Ishchenko, L. S. Kolodko, A. A. Maslov, A. I. Maslov, A. I. Maslova, E. Yu. Oleynikova, T. F. Polyakina, O. S. Poludo, S. V. Ponomareva, S. P. Savelyev, R. P. Savelyeva, E. A. Sizikov, F. F. Chertovsky, A. F. Shipina and A. V. Shcherbinin. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there correspond the Constitutions of the Russian Federation disputed by applicants of legislative provision.

Considering that the request and claims concern the same subject, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, being guided by article 48 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", connected cases on these addresses in one production.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker O. S. Hokhryakova, explanation of the parties and their representatives, the expert opinion - the doctor of jurisprudence E. A. Borisova, speech of the representative from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation invited in meeting - the vice-chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V. M. Zhuykov, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation established:

1. In the addresses to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation applicants on this case challenge constitutionality of number of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, namely: Item 3 parts one of Article 16, paragraph one of part two of Article 20, Articles 112 and 336, Article parts one 376, Article parts two 377, paragraphs two, the third and fourth Article 380, parts two, third, fifth and sixth Article 381, part two and paragraph of the fourth of part three of Article 382, Articles 383, 387, 388 and 389.

1.1. The Sosnovoborsk city court of the Leningrad region the decision of March 4, 2003 satisfied claims of the citizen A. D. Ishchenko about collection from management of social protection of the population of the municipality "City Sosnovy Bor" of debt on payments of compensation in indemnification to health from December 7, 2000 till February 28, 2003 and assignment on the defendant of obligation to pay to the claimant monthly since March 1, 2003 the specified monetary compensation with subsequent its indexation according to the procedure and the terms established by the law. The resolution of the Trial Court was changed by determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Leningrad regional court of November 19, 2003 regarding the amount of the payments which are subject to collection.

The presidium of the Leningrad regional court where management of social protection of the population of the municipality "City Sosnovy Bor" based on Article 376 GPK of the Russian Federation addressed with the claim about review of the taken place court decrees according to the procedure of supervision, cancelled them on May 20, 2005 and refused satisfaction of claims of A. D. Ishchenko. On September 1, 2006 Judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered case on the supervising claim A.D. Ishchenko, repealed the resolution of presidium of the Leningrad regional court and upheld resolution of the Trial Court and determination of cassation instance.

In the claim in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation A. D. Ishchenko asks to check constitutionality of part one of Article 376 GPK of the Russian Federation according to which the court decrees which took legal effect, except for court decrees of Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, can be appealed in Supervisory Court by persons participating in case and other persons if their rights and legitimate interests are violated by court decrees. The applicant believes that this regulation allows appeal according to the procedure of supervision by the official of the body of the public power which was the party in dispute of the court decree issued for benefit of the citizen which took legal effect and is subject to strict execution, for the purpose of its cancellation, and therefore does not correspond to Articles 2, 15 (part 2), 17 (part 1), 18, 45 (part 1) and 46 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and contradicts article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also Item 1 of article 6 of the Convention on human rights protection and fundamental freedoms in its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights.

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info