On behalf of the Russian Federation
of June 8, 2015 No. 14-P
On the case of check of constitutionality of part one of article 256 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the claim of the citizen T. I. Romanova
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,
being guided by Article 125 (part 4) Constitutions of the Russian Federation, Item 3 parts one, parts three and the fourth Article 3, Article part one 21, Articles 36, 47.1, 74, 86, 96, 97 and 99 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation",
considered in meeting without carrying out hearing case on check of constitutionality of part one of Article 256 GPK of the Russian Federation.
Reason for consideration of the case was the claim of the citizen T. I. Romanova. 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 legislative provision disputed by the declarant.
Having heard the message of the judge-speaker G. A. Zhilin, having researched the submitted documents and other materials, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
1. According to Article part one 256 GPK of the Russian Federation the citizen has the right to take a legal action with the statement within three months from the date of when he knew of violation of its rights and freedoms.
1.1. The decision of Leninsky district court of the city of Cheboksary of the Chuvash Republic which took legal effect of July 5, 2012 made after cancellation of the former decision on new circumstances in pursuance of the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 28, 2012 No. 4-P met the requirement of the citizen T. I. Romanova about recognition illegal resolutions of the State Council of the Chuvash Republic of March 22, 2011 No. 793 "About early termination of powers of the deputy of the State Council of the Chuvash Republic Romanova T. I.".
Afterwards T. I. Romanova took a legal action with the requirement about compensation of the moral harm in the amount of 3 000 000 rubles done by illegal decision of the State Council of the Chuvash Republic on early deprivation of its powers of the deputy.
Claims of T. I. Romanova were satisfied with the decision of Leninsky district court of the city of Cheboksary of the Chuvash Republic of September 20, 2013 partially and in its advantage is collected from the State Council of the Chuvash Republic as compensation of moral harm of 100 000 rubles. However this decision was cancelled by appeal determination of judicial board on civil cases of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic of December 18, 2013 on case the new decision on refusal in satisfaction of the specified claims is passed with reference to the fact that three-months term for the appeal of the citizen to the court established by Article part one 256 GPK of the Russian Federation which was not observed by the declarant extends to requirements about compensation of the moral harm done by illegal decisions, actions (failure to act) of public authority, local government body, the official, government or local government officer.
By determination of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic of January 13, 2014 and determination of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from February 21, 2014 in transfer of writs of appeal on appeal determination for consideration in judicial session of court of cassation instance T. I. Romanova it was refused. The bases for introduction of idea of review of appeal determination according to the procedure of supervision and the vice-chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (the letter of June 2, 2014) are not found.
According to T. I. Romanova, application of part one of Article of 256 GPK of the Russian Federation by courts as the basis for refusal in the claim by consideration of its case on compensation of the moral harm done to it by the State Council of the Chuvash Republic owing to adoption of the resolution of March 22, 2011 No. 793, illegality of which it is recognized as the judgment which took legal effect, contradicts articles 52 and 53 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and violates its right to compensation by the state of the harm done to it.
1.2. According to Articles 74, 96 and 97 Federal constitutional Laws "About the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation checks according to claims of citizens constitutionality of the law or its separate provisions affecting constitutional rights and freedoms to which violation the applicant refers, and applied in specific case which consideration is complete in court; The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation accepts the resolution only in the subject specified in the claim and only concerning that part of the act which constitutionality is called in question, estimating both literal sense of the considered legislative provisions, and the sense given them by official and other interpretation or the developed law-enforcement practice and also proceeding from their place in system of precepts of law; in case of decision making the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not connected by the bases and arguments stated in the claim.
Thus, subject of consideration of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of this case is Article part one 256 GPK of the Russian Federation in that measure in what this regulation forms the basis for refusal in connection with the omission of three-months circulation period in court in satisfaction of the compensation claim of the moral harm done to the citizen by decisions, actions (failure to act) of public authority, local government body, the official, government or local government officer which illegality is established by the judgment which took legal effect.
Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info
Database include more 50000 documents. You can find needed documents using search system. For effective work you can mix any on documents parameters: country, documents type, date range, teams or tags.
More about search system
If you cannot find the required document, or you do not know where to begin, go to Help section.
In this section, we’ve tried to describe in detail the features and capabilities of the system, as well as the most effective techniques for working with the database.
You also may open the section Frequently asked questions. This section provides answers to questions set by users.