THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS: THE PROBLEM OF UNENFORCEABLE JUDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION. The paper demonstrates that the problem of implementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights does exist if such a judgment is not in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This problem is caused in legal dimension by the two different factors. On the one hand the Constitution of the Russian Federation “shall be the supreme law and shall be in force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. No laws or other legislative acts … shall contravene the Constitution of the Russian Federation” (Article 15 Part 1). On the other hand, a State may not invoke its internal (national) law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty (Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Research materials include judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and Orders of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and also the teachings of the most qualified scholars in International Law which are relevant to the title of this paper. General and specific scientific methods are used by the author. In the context of applicable general international law the paper considers both judgments o the European Court of Human Rights and orders of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation paying specific attention to the reasons of different legal positions adopted by these Courts.

RESEARCH RESULTS. The widening of the competence of the Сonstitutional Court of Russia in December 2014 arouses apprehension. The Court pointed out that two judgments of the European Court on Human Rights were unenforceable: (1) on the judgment on the application of Anchugov and Gladkov and (2) on the judgment concerning the application of UKOS. In the first case the European Court on Human Rights admitted that Russia was responsible for moral damage and the recognition of it was enough for compensation. In the second case the European Court on Human Rights admitted that Russia violated Protocol No.1 to the Convention on Human Rights. In connection with it Russia must compensate the pecuniary damage. It is confirmed by the Committee of Ministers (the Council of Europe).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation indeed has (as its professional function) an obligation to legally protect the national interests of Russia if they are questioned by a judgment of a foreign court which does not correspond to International Law. But in cases considered in this paper the Constitutional Court of Russia while addressing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (which are in contradiction with the International Law) made itself a legal mistake from the point of International Law. According to Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith”. Even in the case when the national law provides for a different approach (article 27 of the same Convention). The Constitution of any State is a part of its national law. So the 1969 Convention’s rules of Articles 26 and 27 are applicable also to Constitutions. While stating that the Constitution has a higher legal value then International Treaty of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court thus undermines the national interests of Russia in maintaining legal order and the Rule of Law in international relations.

1. Abashidze A.Kh., Ilyashevich M.V., Solntsev A.M. Anchugov & Gladkov v. Russia. – American Journal of International Law. 2017. Vol. 111. Issue

2. P. 461–468. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.31 2. Biryukov M.M. Evropeiskii Soyuz, Evrokonstitutsiya i mezhdunarodnoe parvo [European Union, EU Constitution and International Law]. Moscow: Nauchnaya kniga Publ. 253 p. 2006. (In Russ.)

3. Chernichenko S.V. Tezis o verkhovenstve mezhdunarodnogo prava i Konstitutsiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii [The Primacy of International Law and the Constitution of the Russian Federation]. – Rossiiskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava, 2016 [Russian Yearbook of International Law, 2016]. Saint Petersburg: Rossiya-Neva Publ. 2017. P. 20–35. (In Russ.)

4. Chernichenko S.V. Vzaimosvyaz’ imperativnykh norm mezhdunarodnogo prava (jus cogens) i obyazatel’stv erga omnes [Interconnection of Peremptory Norms of International Law and erga omnes Obligations]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2012. No. 3 (87). P. 3–17. (In Russ.)

5. Crawford J. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. 888 p.

6. Konventsii Soveta Evropy i Rossiiskaya Federatsiya. Otv. redaktor L.I. Brycheva [The Convetions of the Council of Europe and the Russian Federation. Ed. by L.I. Brycheva]. Moscow: “Yuridicheskaya literatura” Publ. 2000. 399 p. (In Russ.)

7. Romanovsky G.B. “Delo Anchugova i Gladkova” i resheniya Konstitutsionnogo suda RF, organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya zarubezhnykh stran [Anchugov and Gladkov Case and the Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Bodies of the Constitutional Control of Foreign Countries]. – Lex Russica. 2017. No. 2 (123). P. 135–146. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17803/1729- 5920.2017.123.2.135-146

8. Sinyakin I.I., Skuratova A.Yu. Normy jus cogens: istoricheskii aspekt i sovremennoe znachenie dlya mezhdunarodnogo prava [Jus Cogens: the historical apect and contemporary value for international law]. – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2018. Issue 41. P. 526–545. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2018-41-526-545

9. Vaypan G. Trudno byt’ Bogom: Konstitutsionnyi sud Rossii i ego pervoe delo o vozmozhnosti ispolneniya postanovleniya Evropeiskogo suda po pravam cheloveka [Hard to be a God: the Russian constitutional court and its first case on enforceability of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights]. – Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2016. No. 4 (113). P. 107–124. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2016-4-107-124

10. Vylegzhanin A.N., Kalamkaryan R.A. Znachenie mezhdunarodnogo obychaya v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave [The Role of International Custom in the Contemporary International Law]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2012. No. 2 (86). P. 5–29. (In Russ.)