Publications

According to the Environmental Doctrine of the Russian Federation, the «polluter pays principle» is one of the main economic mechanisms that ensure sustainable use of natural resources in market conditions. Oficially it is enshrined in paragraph seven of Article 3 of the Federal Law of January 10, 2002 No. 7-FZ «On Environmental Protection» (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Environmental Protection) under the name of the principle of paid nature use and compensation for environmental damage, and its content was disclosed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, who noted that this principle «is expressed in the mandatory financing by legal entities and individual entrepreneurs engaged in economic and (or) other activities that lead or may lead to environmental pollution, measures to prevent and (or) reduce the negative impact on the environment elimination of the consequences of this impact» (Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 02.06.2015 No. 12-P).

Based on the analysis of the current practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the article notes that the spread of modern technologies has had a serious impact on the constitutional status of the individual: due to the development of the Internet, the list of constitutional rights and freedoms has expanded, additional ways of their implementation have appeared. The development of digitalization processes in all spheres of public life has had an impact, including on the interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy, which was taken into account in the interpretative activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. This trend is reflected in the fact that constitutional-judicial practice accumulates cases related to the resolution of contradictions arising between the rights of private entities (for example, the right to privacy and freedom of speech), and not in the relationship of the individual and the government. In addition, the article emphasizes that with the brevity of the constitutional regulation of relations arising in connection with the spread of the Internet, and confusing legislation in the relevant field, judicial authorities (including the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation) are actively involved in resolving conflicts concerning, in particular, the right to privacy.

The nature of institutional obstacles to initiating a criminal case is analyzed in the article. By virtue of Part 8 of Art. 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation initiation of a criminal case under Art. 305 of the Criminal Code is possible only after a preliminary reasoned judgment of a higher court (in relation to the court that adopted the unjust judicial act) on the circumstances that indicate the commission of this crime. The given example reveals in detail the problems of such legal regulation, and also analyzes other elements of a crime, which, as a basis for criminal liability, presuppose the presence of a preliminary motivated judgment about the circumstances that subsequently become the subject of proof in a criminal case (Articles 157, 197 of the Criminal Code). The presence of institutional obstacles to the initiation of a criminal case, in particular, prejudgment, raises the question of the legal nature of this institution, since in case of prejudgment, criminal prosecution is possible only subject to a preliminary motivated judgment of one or another state body. Based on the example of the historical comprehension of similar provisions (part 1.1 of Article 140 of the Criminal Procedure Code), the conclusion is drawn about the dual material-procedural nature of this institution, as well as the fact that when such provisions are included in the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, it is necessary to change the criminal law. Consistent, predictable legal regulation can be ensured only if the introduction of institutional obstacles to the initiation of a criminal case is simultaneously accompanied by a change in the norm of the criminal law by fixing the condition of punishment in its hypothesis. Ignoring the material and legal component will lead to a violation of the constitutional principles of action in time of the law that worsens the punishment, namely Part 2 of Art. 54 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the interpretation given by the Constitutional Court, as well as in violation of paragraph 1 of Art. 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.

Among the institutions of constitutional law affected by the constitutional reform that took place in 2020 was the model of a complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The most notable innovation is that the complaint to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is possible only after domestic remedies have been exhausted. This article is devoted to a critical understanding of this modification, making it difficult for citizens to access constitutional justice.

This publication is a monograph by a team of authors dedicated to the constitutional and legal problems of democracy in Russia. and foreign countries. For specialists in the field of constitutional law, teachers, graduate students and students of law universities and faculties, practical employees of public authorities and local self-government, as well as all those who are interested in the regulation and implementation of human rights and freedoms.

Modern constitutional-law scholarship, paying considerable attention to the methods of interpretation of the Russian Federation Constitution, often bypasses the substantive issues of interpretation of constitutional concepts, usually pushing them into the field of legal technique. A large number of studies focus on the issues of constitutional terminology, i. e. on the external aspect of constitutional concepts, leaving aside their meaning and place in the system of constitutional regulation. Meanwhile, the proper determination of the content and scope of a constitutional provision depends directly on the interpretation of the concept that forms the basis of the constitutional norm. For this purpose, the Russian Constitutional Court, which is authorized to interpret the Russian Federation Constitution in an official and binding way, applies the method of autonomous interpretation, which involves interpreting constitutional notions in the system of constitutional provisions without limiting to the definitions given to them by the statutory regulation. This method of interpretation has not been thoroughly understood in the domestic constitutional-law science in relation to the activities of the Russian Constitutional Court. However, under the conditions of the increasing complexity of the system of legislation, as well as in connection with the participation of the Russian Federation in international organizations, the autonomous interpretation of the Russian Federation Constitution may be in demand in the practice of the Russian Constitutional Court.

The article analyses the judicial practice of imposing a court fine. The peculiarities of taking into account the signs of indemnification, determining the size of the court fine and setting a period for its payment were revealed. The authors show options for assessing the actions of a person, expressed in apologizing to the victim, pleading guilty or promoting justice. It was also proposed not to impose a court fine in an amount less than the administrative fine provided for a similar offense.

The monograph presents a pragmatic view of the principles of law in the applied, normographic aspect. The authors demonstrate by concrete examples both positive and unsuccessful experience of using the principles in the text of federal laws. The monograph presents specifi c proposals that allow to increase the effectiveness of legislative regulation with the help of legal technology achievements. The book is addressed to members of legislative (representative) authorities, civil servants, specialists in the fi eld of constitutional and administrative law, as well as to all those interested in modern problems of lawmaking and legal technology.

In the  present paper, the  author develops and clarifies some of the approaches expressed in a previously published article entitled “Is there room for Economic Analysis in the Theory and Practice pf Constitutional Adjudication?” (Statute. 2020. No. 12). In particular, the author proceeds from the assumption that, in contrast to issues of criminal law policy, an appeal to Law and Economics in such areas as land, tax, antitrust law is justified and even necessary. In support of this hypothesis, the author analyses in detail three cases considered by the  Russian Constitutional Court: determination of the  price of a plot depending on its condition in eminent domain cases; investigating the tactics of price disorientation in the course of the electronic auction; taxation of property in the case of shopping and business centers