title: Dialogue St. Petersburg — Strasbourg: on the conflict between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: van der Pol, Ruth A.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: van der Pol, Liudmila V.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2019-12-13T19:48:56Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2019-12-13T19:48:56Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2019-12
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: van der Pol, Ruth A., van der Pol, Liudmila V. 2019. “Dialogue St. Petersburg — Strasbourg: on the conflict between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law 4: 781–795.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2019.411
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/16874
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: This paper reflects the authors’ opinion on the growing tension in the relationship between
  the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights
  (ECtHR). It aims at informing a broad circle of interested readers, scholars, jurists and students
  about the origins of the difficult relations between the Constitutional Court and ECtHR.
  Relations between both courts significantly soured after the Constitutional Court delivered its famous Markin judgment, ruling that under certain circumstances it may not recognize judgments
  from Strasbourg. This paper places this decision in the context of the manner in which
  international law influences the Russian legal system according to the Russian Constitution.
  The authors argue that it would substantially credit the Constitutional Court if it would give
  up on the use of the so-called ‘last word’ and, in line with other European High Courts, would
  engage in a constructive dialogue with Strasbourg. The paper also illustrates the tense relations
  between the two highest courts with references to recent judgments of the constitutional
  Court and places them in light of the Constitutional Court’s earlier ruling in the Bogdanov
  and others v. Russia case of 2001 where it loyally acknowledged that the Convention is part of
  Russia’s domestic legal system, accepted the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court and began to
  render its case-law enforcement practice, including judicial, in full conformity with the obligations
  from Russia’s participation in the Convention and the protocols thereto. Furthermore,
  the authors highlight the approaches of several European courts in similar situations as well as
  the opinions of various European and Russian lawyers on the significance of sovereignty and
  importance of discussion on differences that arise between the Russian Constitutional Court
  and ECtHR. In this respect the authors point to Protocol No. 16 of the Convention, which
  creates for the highest Courts of the member states of the Council of Europe the possibility
  to ask the Strasbourg Court for an ‘advisory opinion.’ According to the explanatory report,
  protocol No. 16 is meant to foster dialogue between courts and enhance the Strasbourg court’s
  constitutional role.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law;Volume 10; Issue 4
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Constitutional Court
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: European Court of Human Rights
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Konstantin Markin
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: nonenforcement judgments ECtHR
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: conflict
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: dialogue
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: protocol no. 16
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: Dialogue St. Petersburg — Strasbourg: on the conflict between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 781-795.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/16874/1/781-795.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 655,27 kB