On behalf of the Russian Federation

RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

of February 14, 2013 No. 4-P

On the case of check of constitutionality of the Federal Law "About introduction of amendments to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences and the Federal Law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" in connection with request of group of deputies of the State Duma and the claim of the citizen E.V.Savenko

Constitutional court of the Russian Federation as a part of the Chairman V. D. Zorkin, K. V. Aranovsky's judges, A. I. Boytsova, N. S. Bondar, G. A. Gadzhiyev, Yu. M. Danilov, L. M. Zharkova, G. A. Zhilin, S. M. Kazantsev, M. I. Kleandrov, S. D. Knyazev, A. N. Kokotov, L. O. Krasavchikova, S. P. Mavrin, N. V. Melnikov, Yu. D. Rudkin, O. S. Hokhryakova, V. G. Yaroslavtsev,

with participation of representatives of the Russian Federation which appealed to the Constitutional Court of group of deputies of the State Duma - deputies of the State Duma E. B. Mizulina and V. G. Solovyov, the citizen E. V. Savenko and his representative - the lawyer G. S. Lavrentyev, the plenipotentiary of the State Duma in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation D.F. Vyatkin, the representative of the Federation Council - the doctor of jurisprudence A. S. Salomatkin, 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 (parts 2 and 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Item 3 parts two of Article 21, 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 the Federal Law "About introduction of amendments to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences and the Federal Law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye".

Reason for consideration of the case were the request of group of deputies of the State Duma and the claim of the citizen E. V. Savenko. The basis to consideration of the case was the found uncertainty in question of whether there corresponds to the Constitution of the Russian Federation the disputed Federal Law as in general - in the order of its acceptance by the State Duma, and on content of separate regulations.

Having heard the message of the judge-speaker S. D. Knyazev, explanation of agents of the parties, speeches of the representatives invited in meeting: from the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation - M. A. Melnikova, from the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation - V. K. Mikhaylova, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

established:

1. The group of deputies of the State Duma which appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with request according to the procedure of Article 125 (the part Item "and" 2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, disputes constitutionality of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ "About introduction of amendments to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences and the Federal Law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" in the order of acceptance and on content of separate regulations; the citizen E.V.Savenko who appealed to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with the claim to violation of the constitutional rights according to the procedure of Article 125 (part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, disputes constitutionality of one of provisions of the called Federal Law which enters also subject of the address of group of deputies of the State Duma.

Proceeding from it 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 request and the claim in one production.

1.1. The group of deputies of the State Duma asks to recognize the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 as No. 65-FZ in general not to the relevant articles 3, 72 (the part Item "to" 1), 76 (part 2), 94 and 101 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation as believes that fundamental breaches of requirements of part two of Article 56, of Article 109, of Article part three 114, Articles 118, parts five and the seventh Article 119 and parts seven and the thirteenth Article 123 of Regulations of the State Duma allowed when passing this Federal Law in the State Duma are beyond the internal organization of work of legislature, and therefore have constitutional and legal value and represent obvious and good causes for its recognition not corresponding to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the order of acceptance.

Non-compliance with requirements of Regulations of the State Duma was expressed, according to applicants, in the following. First, the relevant bill - besides that on the content it belongs to the acts regulating questions of joint maintaining the Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation - did not go for representation of responses to legislative (representative) and supreme executive bodies of the government of subjects of the Russian Federation neither to, nor after consideration in the first reading. Secondly, the concept of the bill which was initially introduced by authors and it was accepted in the first reading as the federal law draft "About Introduction of Amendments to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences", in the second reading underwent to basic review therefore it was added with the provisions mentioning procedure for holding public actions and by that causing introduction of amendments not only to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences, but also to the Federal Law of June 19, 2004 No. 54-FZ "About meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye". Thirdly, the procedure of consideration of the bill by the State Duma was violated, namely: during discussion of amendments to the bill to the second reading duration guaranteed to deputies of the State Duma - to authors of amendments of three-minute performance on each amendment for the purpose of its reasons was twice reduced (at first to one minute, then up to thirty seconds); in the third reading the bill was adopted without representation of its final text to deputies (despite the fact that adoption of law in general in one day with adoption of the bill in the second reading is allowed only in the presence of its final text); as a result of essential reducing terms of introduction of the bill for consideration of the State Duma and submission of amendments to it after its acceptance in the first reading (together with violations of other fixed terms) all legislative procedure in the State Duma took 26 days instead of minimum put 112 days.

Besides, the group of deputies of the State Duma believes that to Articles 19 (parts 1 and 2), 31 and 55 (part 3) Constitutions of the Russian Federation do not correspond following provisions of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ making changes to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences and article 2 of this Federal Law making changes to the Federal Law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" which, according to applicants, contain the unreasonable and excessive restrictions of right to liberty of peaceful assemblies which are not caused constitutionally by the acknowledged purposes and encroaching on being of the granted constitutional right:

Items 3, 6, 7, 8, the 9 and 10 Article 1 - in that measure in what they provide excessive increase in the sizes of administrative penalties for violation of established procedure of the organization and holding public action, namely to three hundred thousand rubles for citizens and to six hundred thousand rubles for officials;

Items 4, 7, 8, the 9 and 10 Article 1 - in that measure in what they provide excessive on duration (till two hundred o'clock) administrative punishment in the form of obligatory works;

Item 5 of Article 1 - in that measure in what it (up to one year) prescriptive limit of administrative prosecution for violation of the law about meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye unreasonably increases;

Item 7 of Article 1 and paragraphs the fourth and fifth the subitem "v" of Item 1 of Article 2 - in that measure in what they provide to take assignment on the organizer of public action of actually impracticable obligation measures for non-admission of exceeding of the public action of expected number of his participants specified in the notification on carrying out and responsibility for failure to carry out of this obligation which fixing besides attracts danger of exceeding of the declared number of participants of public action as a result of provocative actions from opponents of its carrying out;

Items 7 and 8 of Article 1 and the subitem "g" of Item 1 of Article 2 - in the part conferring responsibility for the harm done by participants of public action on the organizer of public action, and in essence - the responsibility for any excesses restacking on it all completeness during public action without the fact that protection of procedure during the meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye requires the special (special) knowledge, skills and powers inherent in police activities;

Item 7 of Article 1, the subitem "g" of Item 1, Items 6 and 8 of Article 2 - in that measure in what they provide obligatory approval of holding public action and by that, in fact, is entered allowing procedure for realization of the right to the organization and holding meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye;

the subitem "an" of Item 1 of Article 2 - in that measure in what it establishes prohibition for person, two and more times brought to the administrative responsibility for the administrative offenses connected with the organization and holding public actions to be the organizer of public action;

Item 3 of Article 2 - in the part concerning regulation of the picketing which is carried out by one participant whose redundancy can lead to liquidation of this form of realization of right to liberty of peaceful assemblies;

the subitem "an" of item 4 of Article 2 - in that measure in what it, giving to executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation authority to determine specially allotted places for holding public actions, does not specify either type of the corresponding regulatory legal act, or criteria by which the executive body in case of adoption of such act therefore ample opportunities for additional essential restriction of right to liberty of peaceful assemblies at the level of subjects of the Russian Federation open shall be guided.

Meanwhile No. 65-FZ and, respectively, the article 20.2 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation stated in its edition in the part providing the administrative responsibility for violation of established procedure of the organization or holding meeting, meeting, demonstration, procession or picketing have Item 7 of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 blanket nature, and therefore assessment of degree of definiteness of the concepts containing in them shall be performed as repeatedly specified the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, proceeding not only from the text of the law, the used formulations, but also from their place in system of normative instructions; the regulating regulations which are directly fixing these or those rules of conduct shall not contain in the same regulatory legal act, as the regulations establishing legal responsibility for their violation (The resolution of May 27, 2003 No. 9-P, determination of April 21, 2005 No. 122-O, of December 1, 2009 No. 1486-O-O, of June 28, 2012 No. 1253-O, etc.).

As in interrelation with other its provisions with evidence follows from contents of articles 1 and 3 of the Federal law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" that the procedure for the organization and holding the public actions mentioned in it is established by the called Federal Law and other legal acts of the Russian Federation relating to providing the right to holding meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye, and in the cases provided by it - the regulatory legal acts published by the President of the Russian Federation (part 4 Articles 8), the Government of the Russian Federation (part of 1 Article 11) and public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation (part 2 Articles 7, of part 1.1, 2. 2, 3 and 3.1 Articles 8 and part of 1 Article 11), the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not see uncertainty in question of constitutionality of Item 7 of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ in the aspect specified by applicants and consequently, production on demand in this part owing to the interconnected provisions of part two of Article 36 and Item 2 parts one of article 43 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" are subject to the termination.

Similarly it belongs also to Item 17 of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ which Chapter 32 the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is added with Article 32. 13, providing procedure for execution of the resolution on purpose of obligatory works as administrative punishment, including in case of evasion from its serving. As the such specified legislative provisions do not aim at fixing of criteria of otgranicheniye of this type of administrative punishment from similar type of criminal penalty - the distinctions concerning the bases of purpose of these sanctions, their terms, the group of people to which they cannot be applied, evasion effects from their serving and other characteristics are directly fixed in relevant provisions of the penal legislation and the legislation on administrative offenses.

Any uncertainty and concerning conditions which administrative prosecution of person evading from serving of the administrative penalty imposed to it in the form of obligatory works by numerous refusal of their accomplishment and (or) numerous absence for obligatory works without valid excuse contacts is not seen: in sense of the considered legislative provisions, the administrative responsibility can come only if person to whom this administrative penalty is imposed refuses accomplishment of obligatory works and (or) does not come to this work more than once without valid excuse; at the same time lack of special specifying on what reasons are valid, means that as those any circumstances (disease, the death of close relatives, force majeure, etc.) can be recognized which availability with sufficient clarity excludes reference of the corresponding actions (failure to act) to evasion from serving of obligatory works.

The rule entered by Item 17 of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ which is directly determining that types of obligatory works and the list of the organizations in which this administrative sentence is served by persons subjected to it are determined by local government bodies in coordination with territorial authorities of the federal executive body authorized on implementation of functions on forced execution of executive documents and providing established procedure of activity of the courts with indication of on the fact that types of obligatory works for which accomplishment special skills or knowledge are required cannot be determined concerning persons which do not have such skills or knowledge also does not contain the uncertainty interfering according to applicants in interrelation, to explanation of the mechanism of approval of the list of the organizations where obligatory works are left.

1, of Items 6 and 8 of article 2 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ applicants see illegality of provisions of Item 7 of Article 1 and subitem "g" of Item that they limit right to liberty of peaceful assemblies, entering, in essence, allowing procedure for its realization. Meanwhile Item 7 of article 1 of this Federal Law establishing the administrative responsibility for violation of procedure for the organization or holding meeting, meeting, demonstration, procession or picketing, the subitem "g" of Item 1 of its Article 2, civil responsibility for the harm assigning to the organizer of public action in case of non-execution of the obligations by it done by his participants, Item 8 of Article 2, determining that one of the bases of the termination of public action is non-execution by his organizer of the corresponding obligations (part 4 of article 5 of the Federal law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye"), in itself do not raise the questions concerning approval of holding meetings, meetings, demonstrations, processions and piketirovaniye.

Therefore, constitutionality of provisions of Item 7 of Article 1, of the subitem "g" of Item 1 and Item 8 of article 2 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ in the aspect specified by applicants (as the peaceful assemblies entering allowing procedure for realization of right to liberty) cannot be check subject of this case from the point of view of the general requirements shown to addresses to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation by article 37 of the Federal constitutional Law "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", and therefore production on demand in this part is also subject to the termination.

1.2. The citizen E. V. Savenko disputes constitutionality of the subitem "an" of Item 1 of article 2 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ which added part 2 of article 5 of the Federal law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" with Item 1. According to which 1, there cannot be the organizer of public action person having not removed or unspent conviction for making of intentional crime against bases of the constitutional system and safety of the state or crime against public safety and public order or two and more times brought to the administrative responsibility for the administrative offenses provided by Articles 5. 38, 19.3, 20.1 - 20.3, 20.18, 20.29 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, during the term when it is considered subjected to administrative punishment.

As appears from the materials provided to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, with reference to the disputed regulation the Department of regional security of the city of Moscow refused meeting and the demonstration which submitted the notification on carrying out on July 31, 2012 to group of citizens which part E. V. Savenko, in approval of holding these public actions was. On July 31, 2012 concerning E. V. Savenko detained on site holding public action by them the protocol on the administrative offense provided by part 1 of the article 20.2 "Violation of Established Procedure of the Organization or Holding Meeting, Meeting, Demonstration, Procession or Picketing" Administrative Code of the Russian Federation was constituted. He was found by the resolution of the magistrate judge of judicial site No. 423 of Tverskoy district of the city of Moscow of August 9, 2012 left without change by the decision of Tverskoy district court of the city of Moscow of September 26, 2012 guilty of making of this administrative offense: as it is specified in motivation part of the resolution, E. V. Savenko repeatedly within year was brought to the administrative responsibility for the offenses provided by articles 19.3 and 20.2 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and therefore, having undertaken within the term when person is considered subjected to administrative punishment, functions on the organization of public action, directly broke the ban imposed by the subitem "an" of Item 1 of article 2 of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ.

According to E. V. Savenko, the legislative provision applied by court does not correspond to Articles 19 (parts 1 and 2), 31, 50 (part 1), 54 (part 1) and 55 (part 2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as diminishes the right of the category of citizens specified in it whose number also the applicant treats, to be going peacefully, to hold meetings, meetings and demonstrations, processions and picketing without weapon, puts them in unequal position with other citizens and establishes the accessorial liability contrary to the constitutional prohibition of repeated condemnation for the same crime, and also extends the action to persons who were brought to the administrative responsibility for the offenses specified in it before entry into force of the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ.

1.3. Thus, proceeding from requirements of Articles 36, of 37, of 74, of 84, of 85, 96 and 97 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", subject of consideration of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of this case is the Federal Law of June 8, 2012 No. 65-FZ "About introduction of amendments to the Russian Federation Code of Administrative Offences and the Federal Law "About Meetings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Piketirovaniye" in general - from the point of view of its compliance to the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the order of acceptance by the State Duma, and also following provisions of this Federal Law: the subitem "an" of Item 1 of Article 2, prohibiting to person, two and more times brought to the administrative responsibility for the administrative offenses provided by Articles 5. 38, 19.3, 20.1 - 20. 3, 20.18 and 20.29 Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, during the term when person is considered subjected to administrative punishment to be the organizer of public action;

Item 6 of Article 2, resolving carrying out preliminary propaganda from the moment of approval of executive body of the subject of the Russian Federation or local government body of the place and (or) time of holding public action;

Item 7 of Article 1 and paragraphs the fourth and fifth the subitem "v" of Item 1 of Article 2 - in the part assigning obligation to the organizer of public action to take measures for non-admission of exceeding of the public action of number of participants of public action specified in the notification on carrying out if exceeding of number of such participants creates threat to public order and (or) public safety, safety of participants of this public action or other persons or threat of damnification to property, and the specified obligation providing the administrative responsibility of the organizer of public action for non-execution; the subitem "g" of Item 1 of Article 2, establishing civil responsibility of the organizer of public action in case of non-execution by it of the obligations provided by the law for the harm done by participants of public action;

Item 3 of Article 2, allowing possibility of recognition by the judgment on specific civil, administrative or criminal case of set of the acts of the picketing performed by one participant, combined by single intention and the general organization, one public action;

the subitem "an" of item 4 of Article 2, giving to executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation authority to determine specially allotted places for holding public actions;

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