The Russian Public Assembly Law is a very dynamic sector of the Public Law. Merely in 2004 a federal law on public events has been adopted, but this federal law was amended several times. In 2004-2020, a controversial legal practice regarding the FPA has been formed in Russia. At the moment there are several judgements of the RCC on issues of the FPA. The case-law of the RCC has a powerful impact on the modern Public Assembly Law. Having regard to the fact that Russia is member-state of the Council Europe, the RCC is actively makes reference to the European Human Rights Law. However, there are certain differences in the interpretation of the FPA between the RCC and ECtHR. Therefore, the presentation will be focused on the analysis of leading cases of the RCC and ECtHR, in order to define systemic problems of the implementation of the FPA in the Russia.
Counter-majoritarian difficulty is axiomatic regarding relations of the Constitutional Court (CC) and legislator. It’s true that dialogue helps to promote legitimacy and trust for judicial review of legislation. Although post-soviet countries enrich the doctrine of dialog by new nuances. Despite the anti-democratic trends and the rise of populism, in some cases the CC still uses the activism towards the legislator. The author argues that intensity of judicial review depends on several factors such as the status of the decision-maker (federal or regional parliament), ad hoc balancing in the historical and social contexts; the importance of the right concerned; quality of legislative fact-finding etc. However, a more deferential approach instead of nullifying the legislation is not a safe strategy for the CC. As the 2020 constitutional amendments shows, wide use of a consistent interpretation by CC didn’t protect from the humiliating reduction in the number of judges from 19 to 11.
Recently, in Russia, the publication of dissenting and concurring opinions in constitutional justice has been widely discussed by both lawyers and public. The paper emphasizes that the separate opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court is a democratic institution and helps to increase the openness and transparency of constitutional review in post-communist countries in particular.
The publication of dissenting and concurring opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court strengthens trust in constitutional values. On the one hand, a judge exercises the right to freedom of speech and information, draws attention to legal issues. Subsequently, the position of a judge may become a ratio decidendi for a future decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia, as was already the case. On the other hand, as an act of a judge’s creativity, a separate opinion should take into account the consequences of its publication, and cannot undermine the credibility of the judiciary.
The trust to justice is based, inter alia, on the reputation of judges, their professional level, ethical behavior. The activities of the courts in many respects depend on the initial worldview, philosophical, professional positions and attitudes of judges. There are over fifteen constitutional review branches in Russia, including Constitutional Court of Russia Federation, constitutional (ustavny) courts in regions of Russia. All judges have to comply a high qualification level but each of them has personal experience in professional career, different generational and gender experience, etc. To construct in outline the profile of the judge who makes decision in the Russian constitutional courts we do the comparative analysis of judges’ CV (from open sources), acts about the judges’ legal status (in part of necessary qualifications, abilities for tenure).