Judicial constitutional law and judicial constitutional process. Judicial-constitutional law and process

Current page: 20 (total of the book has 23 pages) [available passage for reading: 16 pages]

Font:

100% +

It should be emphasized that the gaps in the law cannot be checked for compliance with the Constitution. Constitutional review does not have the ability to fill in the gaps. This requires the function of the legislator.

The provisions of Art. 100 FKZ on KS ("Final decision on the case") in relation to the requests of the courts mean the following. Based on the results of consideration of the request, the Constitutional Court of Russia makes one of the following decisions:

1) on the recognition of the law or its individual provisions as consistent with the Constitution Russian Federation;

2) on the recognition of the law or its individual provisions as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

If the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized the law applied in a particular case as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, this case, in any case, is subject to review by the competent authority in the usual manner.

Subject regulatory decision issues related to ensuring verification in criminal proceedings of the need for further detention of the accused when the court requests the constitutionality of the law. In the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces of October 31, 1995 No. 8, a recommendation was formulated for the courts, when suspending cases in connection with a request to the RF Constitutional Court, in each case, when the defendant in the case is in custody, to discuss the issue of changing his preventive measure.

Control questions

1. What laws can be checked for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation within the framework of a specific constitutional review at the request of the courts?

2. Which courts have the authority to request a review of the constitutionality of a law?

3. What is the procedure for considering cases in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on checking the constitutionality of a law at the request of the courts?

4. What conditions for the admissibility of a court request are provided for in the legislation and practice of constitutional justice?

5. What are the limits of checking the constitutionality of laws at the request of the courts.

6. What are the features of the procedure for suspending proceedings in a case in the event that a court applies to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request for the compliance of the law to be applied?

7. What are the consequences of accepting a court request for consideration?

8. What is the final decision on the case of checking the constitutionality of the law, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has the right to make?

9. What is legal nature powers of the court to submit a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation? Is this a right or a duty of the court?

10. What is legal force decisions of the Plenary The Supreme Court RF? How does it compare with the legal force of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation?

11. Prepare a draft court request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Topic 3.5. Settlement of disputes on competence in the light of the doctrine of constitutionalism and consideration of other categories of cases

Regulations:

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on 12.12.1993) (as amended on 21.07.2014) // Official Internet Portal legal information http://www.pravo.gov.ru, 01.08.2014

2. On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: FKZ RF dated 21.07.1994 No. 1-FKZ (as amended on 08.06.2015) // SZ RF. - 1994. - No. 13. - Art. 1447.

Main literature:

1. Bondar NS Judicial constitutionalism in Russia in the light of constitutional justice / N.S. Cooper. - M .: Norma; INFRA-M, 2011 .-- 544 p.

2. Vitruk N.V. Constitutional justice. Forensic constitutional law and process: Textbook. allowance. 3rd ed. revised and add. - M: Norma, 2011 .-- 592 p.

3. Constitutional trial: textbook / Otv. ed. M.S. Salikov. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M .: Norma: INFRA-M, 2015 .-- 352 p.

4. Commentary on the Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" (itemized) / Yu.A. Andreeva, V.V. Balytnikov, N.S. Bondar and others; ed. G.A. Gadzhiev. M .: Norma, Infra-M, 2012.672 p.

The balance of powers in the "horizontal" and "vertical" division. Types of disputes about competence. Constitutional review is also intended to facilitate the resolution of political conflicts, disputes over competence between constitutional institutions. The authority of the Constitutional Court as the supreme arbiter in matters of jurisdiction is still being formed. However, the development perspective of this function is extremely important, since its activation can affect the implementation of both “horizontal” and “vertical” separation of powers, ensure a balance between the federal state as a whole and its constituent parts.

According to the definition of Professor Yu.A. Tikhomirov, competence is a legally established volume of public affairs performed by an authorized subject, the elements of which are subjects of conduct as an object of influence and powers as a legal measure of influence. The imposition of competence by public authorities on certain subjects means the establishment of a certain framework within which general public functions, and endowing subjects for this with the necessary tools and procedures 356
Tikhomirov Yu.A. Disputes about competence // Law and Economics. 2001. No. 2. P. 3-4.

To substantiate the constitutional review, three main theories are used: organic, institutional and natural-legal 357
Constitutional (state) law of foreign countries: In 4 volumes. V.12. General part / Otv. ed. prof. B.A. Scarecrow. - 3rd ed., Updated. and finished. - M., 1999 .-- p. 86.

For the resolution of disputes about competence, an institutional theory is essential, adapted for the purpose of overcoming competence disputes and conflicts.

Institutional the theory proceeds from the fact that the constitution establishes the "rules of the game" for the authorities, neither of which should infringe on the powers of the other, but for federal states it is especially important to observe the delimitation of the spheres of competence of the center and the subjects of the federation.

Applied to competence disputes institutional theory means that the constitution enshrines the division of powers and the delineation of jurisdiction between the bodies state power horizontally and vertically, therefore, constitutional justice is obliged to preserve the established balance of powers, facilitate the resolution of disputed issues of competence boundaries, eliminate the identified gaps in the ownership of disputed subjects of jurisdiction and powers of various government agencies... At the same time, not any jurisdictional dispute is subject to resolution in the constitutional court, but only one that has a constitutional and legal nature, concerns the implementation of the principles established in the Constitution. 358
Milchakova O.V. Resolution of jurisdictional disputes (disputes about competence) in the Constitutional Court // Administrative and municipal law... 2014. No. 1. P. 47–52.

The resolution of disputes over competence helps to clarify the scope of powers of state bodies established by the Constitution. Through this procedure, two tasks of the doctrine of constitutionalism are realized: maintaining, and sometimes defining, with possible dynamics, the constitutional boundaries of the principle of separation of powers; deprivation of legal force of an act of a public authority, which was adopted outside of its constitutional powers.

The Law of the Russian Federation of April 21, 1992 "On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR", adopted by the Sixth Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, supplemented the Constitution with Article 165 note 1, which regulates the competence of the Constitutional Court 359
Bulletin of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation. - 1992.– No. 20.– Art. 1084.

The Court acquired the authority to resolve cases on the constitutionality of political parties and other public associations, disputes over competence between state bodies. Competence disputes included disputes between federal state bodies; between the state bodies of the Federation and its subjects; between the state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 retained, having specified, the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to resolve disputes over competence.

According to Part 3 of Art. 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court allows three kinds disputes about competence:

a) between federal government bodies;

b) between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation;

c) between the highest state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In this case, the Constitution establishes classification disputes depending on status and type government body.

Disputes about competence arise in the process of interaction of various state authorities with each other, when they issue acts or perform certain actions. In this case, any authority may exceed the competence established by the Constitution and invade the sphere of the prerogatives of another authority or fail to fulfill the powers entrusted to it. Constitutional justice is intended to confirm or limit the powers established by the Constitution, to eliminate uncertainty in understanding the boundaries of the competence of divided but interacting bodies of state power.

In modern literature, it is customary to distinguish three types of disputes about competence by content:

1) disputes on the recognition of competence;

2) disputes about the denial of competence;

3) disputes on the appropriation by a public authority of powers that do not belong to it 360
See: Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". A comment. - M., 1996. - P.287–288 (the author of the chapter - G A. Gadzhiev); Vitruk N.V. Constitutional justice. - M., 1998. - P.294; Mityukov M.A., Barnashov A.M. Essays on constitutional justice. - Tomsk, 1999 .-- p. 194.

N.V. Vitruk refers the resolution of disputes on competence to the main powers of constitutional courts and points out that according to the subject matter and content of the dispute, four types of disputes can be distinguished:

1) on the recognition of competence: in this case, the requesting public authority considers that the adoption by another public authority of the regulatory legal act or the commission of a specific act is within the competence of the requesting authority;

2) on the denial of competence: the requesting public authority believes that the disputed powers should be exercised by other bodies, and the latter also deny their powers. A particular case of such disputes is the evasion of the body from the issuance of a normative legal act or the commission of an action of a legal nature (unconstitutional inaction);

3) on the assignment of powers: for example, a public authority adopts a regulatory legal act or takes actions that go beyond its own competence, that is, interprets its rights broadly (abuse of law);

4) about contradictions and coincidences in the competence of various state bodies 361
Vitruk N.V. Constitutional justice. Judicial-constitutional law and process: Textbook. manual. 3rd ed., Rev. and add. M .: Norma; INFRA-M, 2011, pp. 266, 293–294.

The classification approaches are justified from the standpoint of the originally submitted application. However, in the course of legal proceedings, legal arguments may be involved that constitute the content of all three types of dispute on competence. As shown by the practice of considering a dispute between the Federation Council and the President of the Russian Federation regarding the temporary suspension The Attorney General, The Constitutional Court cannot confine itself to only recognizing the competence of one body or denying the competence of another body or stating that the body has appropriated powers that do not belong to it. If in relation to one body the authority is confirmed, then in relation to another such authority is denied. Consequently, the Constitutional Court is obliged to comprehensively assess the legal situation from the standpoint demarcations the competence of all public authorities participating in the dispute.

Subjects of the right to file a petition. The Federal Constitution did not define the range of subjects with the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court in disputes over competence. It is enshrined in the FKZ on the Constitutional Court. In accordance with Art. 92 of this law, the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court with a petition to resolve a dispute on competence is vested in any of the public authorities participating in the dispute specified in Art. 125 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and the President of the Russian Federation also in the case provided for in Art. 85 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Can be distinguished two types of interests, which are protected through the consideration of cases on disputes on competence:

1) the constitutional and legal interest of a separate state authority, which initiates the consideration of the case, considering its constitutional competence violated;

2) general constitutional and legal interest. The second type of interest is protected if the President of the Russian Federation exercises the powers provided for in Part 1 of Article 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The President, performing the function of "conductor - arbiter", can use conciliation procedures to resolve disagreements between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as between the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In case of failure to reach an agreed decision, he may refer the resolution of the dispute to the appropriate court. The Constitutional Court can also be such a court. The FKZ on the Constitutional Court (part 2 of article 93) defines two criteria for the admissibility of the President's petition, introduced in the procedure for applying part 1 of article 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. A petition is permissible if the President has used conciliation to resolve disputes between public authorities; and disagreements are a jurisdictional dispute within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Regarding the first criterion of admissibility, it should be noted that it is quite reasonable, since it is necessary to use the mechanism of constitutional justice only as a last resort. At the same time, this criterion of admissibility objectively interferes with the protection of the general constitutional and legal interest through constitutional justice. During the period of activity of the Constitutional Court in 1995–2014, never a dispute about competence (and there were only two cases) was not considered at the request of the President of the Russian Federation, introduced in the application of Art. 85 (part 1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Competence disputes between federal public authorities. In the FKZ on the Constitutional Court, there is no direct listing of federal bodies of state power, disputes about competence, between which are resolved through constitutional justice. However, from paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Art. 93 of the FKZ on the Constitutional Court, it follows that the contested competence should be determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Constitutional norms establish the competence of the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Assembly (Council of Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian Federation, and higher courts. It is these bodies that form the institutional elements of the system of separation of powers, which can conflict on the issue of delimiting constitutional powers. Competence of other federal bodies of state power: federal bodies executive power, The Accounts Chamber, The Central Bank, - is not enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. From the point of view of the principle of separation of powers, these bodies are less significant, although each of them plays an important role in its own field of activity. Nevertheless, these bodies are involved in the implementation of issues attributed to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation or to the joint jurisdiction of the Federation and its constituent entities. Therefore, in the literature, the opinion is expressed that the consideration of a dispute on competence with the participation of these bodies is possible only if the competence is removed from the provisions of Articles 71 and 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the course of constitutional interpretation 362
Kryazhkov V.A., Lazarev L.V. Constitutional justice in the Russian Federation. - M., 1998. - p. 276.

The highest courts - the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court - within the meaning of the law, can be parties to disputes over competence. At the same time, by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Art. 93 of the FKZ on the Constitutional Court, such disputes cannot relate to the issue of the jurisdiction of the case to the courts or the jurisdiction. In this case, the courts would be involved in a dispute between themselves 363
As the experience of the Constitutional Court has shown, even in the course of a normative interpretation of the Constitution, questions of jurisdiction may be raised. An example would be the resolution of June 16, 1998 on the case on the interpretation of certain provisions of Articles 125, 126 and 127 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The situation around this decree was discussed earlier.

Therefore, such issues should be resolved with the help of legislative regulation. In some European countries, such as Austria, constitutional justice is involved in resolving disputes over jurisdiction between the judiciary... Constitutional Court of Austria in accordance with paragraph "a" of Part 1 of Art. 138 of the Austrian Constitution resolves jurisdictional disputes between courts and authorities; between The Administrative Court and all other courts, including the Constitutional Court, as well as between ordinary and other courts.

Two cases of consideration of a dispute on competence concerned specifically the federal state authorities. A resolution of April 6, 1998 resolved a dispute between the Federation Council and the President of the Russian Federation, between the State Duma and the President of the Russian Federation about the obligation of the President of the Russian Federation to sign the adopted federal law "On cultural property moved to the USSR as a result of the Second World War and located on the territory of the Russian Federation. " 364
SZ RF.– 1998.– № 16. - Art. 1879.

Decree of December 1, 1999 resolved a dispute on competence between the Federation Council and the President of the Russian Federation regarding the ownership of the authority to issue an act on the temporary removal of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation from office in connection with the initiation of a criminal case against him 365
SZ RF.– 1999.– No. 51. - Art. 6364.

Disputes about competence between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The Federal Constitution gave the subjects of the Russian Federation the right to independently determine the name and structure of the legislative and executive bodies created by them. Each subject of the Russian Federation can have only one body the legislature determined by the constitution or charter of the subject of the Federation. The right to appeal to the Constitutional Court of executive bodies should be determined depending on their structure and competence. At the same time, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation themselves have no right to prejudge the question of which executive authorities can participate in resolving disputes over competence. In turn, the Constitutional Court should take into account the consolidation of the structure and powers of the executive authorities in the constitution or charter of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to determine the appropriate applicant.

Disputes about competence between the highest state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This type includes disputes about competence between the highest state bodies of different constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Within the same subject of the Russian Federation, disputes between state bodies should be resolved by constitutional (statutory) courts 366
In the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 "On judicial system Russian Federation "Art. 27 does not directly enshrine among the powers of the constitutional (statutory) court the right to consider disputes about competence between state bodies of the same constituent entity of the Russian Federation (SZ RF.– 1997.– No. 1. - Art. 1). However, the list of powers established by this law cannot be considered exhaustive. Therefore, the subjects of the Russian Federation in the laws on the constitutional (statutory) court have the right to provide for this type of authority.

However, nevertheless, one cannot exclude the possibility in one case to resolve such a dispute on competence by a decision of the Constitutional Court. The contested competence must be regulated by the federal Constitution or follow from it and be concretized in federal legislation.

Criteria for the admissibility of the application and the limits of verification.

Conditions for the admissibility of the application body (or bodies) of state power are enshrined in Art. 93 FKZ on the Constitutional Court. There are seven such conditions. First, the disputed competence must be determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In real practice of resolving a dispute, federal laws will also be involved, concretizing or supplementing the constitutional list of powers. Secondly, the dispute cannot relate to the question of the jurisdiction of the case by the courts or of jurisdiction. Thirdly, the petition is admissible if the dispute has not been or cannot be resolved in any other way. Fourthly, the applicant considers the issuance of an act or the performance of an action of a legal nature, or the evasion of the issuance of an act or the commission of such an action as a violation of the delimitation of competence between state authorities established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the subject of the dispute may be a normative or non-normative act issued as a result of the application of any constitutional norms on competence. Fifth, the applicant had previously applied to those referred to in Art. 125 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to public authorities with a written statement about their violation of the applicant's competence as defined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and agreements, or about the evasion of these bodies from the implementation of their responsibilities. Sixth, if within a month from the date of receipt of the written application, which was mentioned above, the indicated violations were not eliminated. Seventh, in the event that the relevant state authority approached the President of the Russian Federation with a request to use the conciliation procedures provided for in Article 85 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation did not use these conciliation procedures within a month from the date of the appeal, or such procedures did not lead to the resolution of the dispute.

When resolving a dispute about competence test limits have differences in comparison with the procedure for checking the constitutionality of normative legal acts and agreements. "Competent" disputes are substantive in nature, since they relate to the scope of powers of this or that body, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers disputes about competence solely from the point of view of the division of state power into legislative, executive and judicial established by the Constitution and the delineation of competence between federal government bodies, as well as from the point of view of the delineation of jurisdictions and powers between government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies. constituent entities of the Russian Federation, between the highest state bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal and other treaties on the delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers.

In Art. 94 of the FKL on the Constitutional Court of 1994, an attempt was made to delimit the procedures for considering cases on the constitutionality of normative acts and disputes on competence by defining criteria for verification 367
Yudin Yu.A., Shulzhenko Yu.L. Constitutional justice in a federal state. - M., 2000 .-- p. 42.

Consideration of a case on the compliance of a normative act, which is the subject of a dispute on competence, with the Constitution of the Russian Federation in terms of the content of norms, form, procedure for its signing, adoption, publication or enactment is possible only on the basis of a separate request and in accordance with the procedure for considering cases on the constitutionality of normative acts ( Part 2 of Art 94 FKZ). Guided by this provision, the Constitutional Court, in a ruling of April 6, 1998, refused to check whether the State Duma violated the procedure for adopting federal laws, as well as the relevant rules provided for by its Rules of Procedure. Since the Federal Law "On Cultural Property Displaced to the USSR as a Result of World War II and Located on the Territory of the Russian Federation" at the time of the consideration of the dispute was not a legal act that entered into force, the Constitutional Court could not exercise preliminary constitutional control, even if it existed separate request. As you know, the President of the Russian Federation refused to sign this federal law, because he believed that when it was re-examined in the chambers of the Federal Assembly, the constitutional procedure for approving the federal law was violated.

In general, the FKL on the Constitutional Court focuses on the differentiation of disputes about competence and cases of constitutional rule of law. In the previous practice of the Constitutional Court, acting on the basis of the 1991 law, it was recognized that a case on the constitutionality of a normative legal act, in essence, could be a dispute over competence. Thus, in a ruling of September 10, 1993, the Constitutional Court indicated that the case under consideration regarding the verification of the constitutionality of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 15, 1992 is, first of all, a dispute about competence that arose between the state authorities of the Irkutsk region and Krasnoyarsk Territory, on the one hand, and the federal executive authorities, on the other, in connection with the publication of the said decree 368
This dispute arose from the constitutional right of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation to resolve issues related to the sphere of joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its constituent entities, together with federal bodies. It was about such a subject of joint jurisdiction as the delimitation of state property in the territory of the krai, oblast. - See: Resolution of September 10, 1993 on the case of checking the constitutionality of the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 15, 1992 "On the organization of management of the electric power complex of the Russian Federation in the context of privatization" // Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.-1994.- No. 4- 5; as well as the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Resolutions. Definitions. 1992–1996 / Compiled and repr. ed. Doctor of Law prof. T.G. Morshchakova. - M., 1997 .-- S. 584.

In a resolution dated April 6, 1998, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, resolving a dispute between the Federation Council and the President of the Russian Federation, between the State Duma and the President of the Russian Federation about the obligation of the President of the Russian Federation to sign the adopted Federal Law "On Cultural Property Moved to the USSR as a result of World War II and on the territory of the Russian Federation ", established that this case is, in fact, a dispute about the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with a normative act, and therefore its consideration is possible on the basis of a separate request and in accordance with the procedure for considering cases on the constitutionality of normative acts. At the same time, the Court ordered the President of the Russian Federation to sign the said law in order to legislative process ended.

Legal implications of the final decision. Having considered the dispute on competence, the Constitutional Court has the right to make one of the following decisions: 1) confirm the authority of the relevant state authority to issue an act or take legal action that caused the dispute on competence; 2) speak negatively.

In a resolution dated April 6, 1998 (clause 1 of the operative part), the Constitutional Court confirmed the obligation of the President of the Russian Federation in accordance with Art. 107 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to sign and promulgate the adopted federal law on cultural property. However, this does not prevent the President of the Russian Federation from applying to the Constitutional Court with a request to verify the compliance of the said federal law with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Subsequently, such a request was received by the Constitutional Court, which, having considered the case, adopted a special resolution of July 20, 1999 369
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the case of verification of constitutionality Federal law dated April 15, 1998 "On cultural values displaced to the USSR as a result of World War II and located on the territory of the Russian Federation" dated July 20, 1999 // SZ RF.– 1999.– No. 30. - Art. 3989.

In another case, the judgment was more multifaceted. In clause 1 of the operative part of the decision of December 1, 1999, the Constitutional Court noted that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the competence of the Federation Council does not include the authority to issue an act on the removal of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation from office during the investigation of a criminal case initiated against him. However, the Constitutional Court could not confine itself only to making a negative decision. A dispute always exists between at least two bodies, therefore, the resolution confirmed not only the right, but also the obligation of the President of the Russian Federation to issue an act (so far there is no other legislative regulation) on the temporary removal of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation from office, the need for which is due to the initiation of criminal case.

Thus, the Constitutional Court not only did not confirm the authority of the Federation Council in this matter, but also pointed out the legality of the actions of the President of the Russian Federation to issue the corresponding act.

The delimitation of competence between various state authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects should be carried out taking into account the principle of constitutionality, which should be understood as determining the content of powers, terms of reference of state bodies from the standpoint of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as interpreted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The principle of constitutionality in judicial practice is considered in the work of S.V. Naruto 370
Naruto S.V. The principle of constitutionality of the delimitation of competence between the bodies of state power of the Russian Federation and its subjects in judicial practice // Law and Politics. 2012. No. 9. P. 1471-1478.

The practice of disputes over competence is so small that the Constitutional Court is forced to form its legal positions in relation to the scope of powers of certain state bodies when considering cases within the framework of other procedures of constitutional proceedings. After all, checking for compliance with the Constitution of normative legal acts and agreements is also allowed from the standpoint of “vertical” and “horizontal” separation of powers, that is, ultimately, the scope of powers of state bodies. A similar situation with respect to disputes over competence is observed in the post-Soviet states. In the newly independent states - the CIS and Baltic countries - as the researchers note, disputes over competence are resolved mainly through checking the constitutionality of legal acts 371
Mityukov M.A. Constitutional courts in the post-Soviet space. Comparative study of legislation and judicial practice... - M., 1999 .-- S. 142.

Other categories of cases include cases of compliance established order accusing the President of the Russian Federation of high treason or committing another grave crime (Chapter XV of the FKZ on the Constitutional Court) and a case on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the requirements during a referendum of the Russian Federation.

According to clause 5.1 of Art. 3 FKZ on the Constitutional Court The court verifies for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation the issue submitted to the referendum of the Russian Federation in accordance with the federal constitutional law regulating the conduct of the referendum of the Russian Federation (clause 5.1 was introduced by the Federal Constitutional Law of 04.06.2014 No. 9-FKZ). However, the procedural rules governing the procedure for considering this category of cases in the law did not appear simultaneously with the adoption of the amendment to expand the powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Such a chapter should appear in the section on the specifics of proceedings in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for certain categories of cases.

Control questions

1. What are competence and competence disputes?

2. What bodies are entitled to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to resolve disputes over competence?

3. What is the procedure for considering cases in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on disputes over competence?

4. What conditions for the admissibility of an application are provided for in the legislation and practice of constitutional justice?

5. Name the types of disputes on competence, subordinate to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

6. What cases on disputes about competence were considered by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation?

7. What are the criteria for the admissibility of the petition and the limits of verification in cases of disputes about competence?

8. What are the legal consequences of the final decision on disputes on competence provided for by law?

9. Prepare a draft petition to resolve the dispute on competence to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on behalf of the state authority.

In 2015, a new chapter appeared in the FKZ on the Constitutional Court (Chapter XIII.1 consideration of cases on the possibility of executing decisions of an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms), which enshrines the rules that allow a constitutional justice body to deprive a higher legal force of an act The European Court of Justice on human rights.

Sending a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

According to article 104.1. a federal executive body empowered with the competence in the field of ensuring activities to protect the interests of the Russian Federation when considering complaints filed against the Russian Federation on the basis of an international treaty of the Russian Federation in an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms, on the basis of the conclusion of federal state bodies entrusted with the obligation to within its competence, to take measures to implement the decisions of an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms, or, if the said federal executive body is itself the body entrusted with such a duty, on the basis of its own conclusion that it is impossible to comply with the complaint filed against the Russian Federation against on the basis of an international treaty of the Russian Federation, a decision of an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms due to the fact that in the part obliging the Russian Federation to take measures to implement it, this decision is based on the provisions of an international treaty of the Russian Federation as interpreted, p. Presumably leading to their discrepancy with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request to resolve the issue of the possibility of executing the decision of an interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms.

The text of the relevant decision of the interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms is attached to the request.

Request admissibility and validation limits.

The admissibility of the request is governed by Article 104.2. Inquiry federal body executive power, endowed with the competence in the field of ensuring activities to protect the interests of the Russian Federation when considering in the interstate body for the protection of human rights and freedoms of complaints filed against the Russian Federation on the basis of an international treaty of the Russian Federation, for example, if the applicant believes that the execution of the decision of the interstate body for the protection of rights and human freedoms is impossible, since it is based on the provisions of an international treaty of the Russian Federation in the interpretation leading to their discrepancy with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

QUESTIONS TO THE STATE EXAMINATION

Constitutional justice. Judicial-constitutional law and process

(summer 2012, winter 2013)

Judicial constitutional review: concept and models.
Types of judicial constitutional review.
The history of the development of constitutional justice in Russia.
Sources (forms) of judicial-constitutional law and process.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation as a source of judicial and constitutional law and process
Generally accepted principles and norms international law as a source of judicial and constitutional law and process
The nature of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and its place in the system higher bodies state power.
Composition, officials and organizational and legal forms of activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Features of the status of a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Principles of the status of a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Jurisdictional powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: concept, types, legal force.
Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: concept, types, legal force.
Constitutional legal proceedings as an independent type of legal proceedings, its features.
Principles of constitutional proceedings: concept, classification, content.
Classification of participants in constitutional proceedings. The procedural position of participants assisting in the implementation of constitutional proceedings.
The procedural position of the parties and their representatives in constitutional proceedings.
Features of evidence and proof in constitutional proceedings.
Submission of an appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Requirements for applying to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Preliminary consideration of the appeal by the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Acceptance or refusal to accept an appeal for consideration at a session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Appointment and preparation of cases for hearing in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
The order of the sitting of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation when considering the case on the merits.
Adoption of the final decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, its announcement, entry into force and publication. Dissenting opinion and opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Correction of inaccuracies in the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Explanation of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Action and execution of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
The concept and types of proceedings in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with normative acts of state authorities and agreements between them.
Proceedings on consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation that have not entered into force international treaties Russian Federation.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on disputes on competence.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on the constitutionality of laws on complaints of violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on the constitutionality of laws at the request of the courts.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of cases on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of a case on compliance with the established procedure for bringing charges against the President of the Russian Federation of high treason or committing another grave crime.

34. Proceedings for consideration by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of the case on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the initiative to hold a referendum of the Russian Federation on the proposed issue (proposed issues) of the referendum.

35. Non-jurisdictional powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

36. Constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation: stages of establishment, procedure for formation and powers.

37. Features of legal proceedings in the constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

Head Department of Constitutional Law N.V. Vitruk

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF JUSTICE

Kazan branch

Department of State and Legal Disciplines

Constitutional justice.

Judicial-constitutional law and process

Training and metodology complex

for full-time students

(specialty 030501.65 (021100) "Jurisprudence")

Kazan

Metelina O.V., Senior Lecturer of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the Kazan branch of the GOU VPO RAP.

Reviewers:

Ivanishin P.Z., Ph.D. ., Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines of the Kazan Branch of the GOU VPO RAP.

Sakaev A.I., Ph.D., Dean of the Law Faculty of the Academy of Management TISBI.

The educational and methodological complex is compiled in accordance with the requirements of the State Educational Standard of the Higher vocational education in the specialty 030501.65 (021100) "Jurisprudence".

Approved at a meeting of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the Kazan Branch of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education RAP (protocol No. 6 of 07.02.2007)

Approved by the Educational and Methodological Council of the Kazan branch of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education RAP (Minutes No. 6 of February 28, 2007).

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………… 3

The scope of the discipline and types of educational work …………………………………… .3

Thematic plan ………………………………………………………… ... 4

Program ………………………………………………………………………… .5

Thematic plan of seminars …………………………………… ... 13

Workshop plans ………………………………………………… .14

Scroll control questions and assignments for independent work ... ..46

Approximate topics of essays and term papers …………………………… .50

Examples of test and test assignments for

midterm control ………………………………………………………… ... 51

Literature ……………………………………………………………………… .53

Questions to prepare for the exam …………………………………………… 60

INTRODUCTION

The information contained in the volume of the special course "constitutional proceedings" is of an important applied nature, at the same time it gives students a theoretical idea of the meaning of the forms and methods of constitutional control both in the Russian Federation and in other countries. Based on the main content of the studied norms, it can be concluded that they are mainly procedural in nature and in a certain way provide one of the most important forms of judicial protection of the rights and freedoms of a citizen.

Goals and objectives of the course

Target: Theoretical training of top-level judiciary specialists in the field of "Jurisprudence".

Objectives of the course:

To help students form a holistic theoretical understanding of the meaning, forms and methods of constitutional control, get practical ideas about the features and content of the rules governing the constitutional judicial process in the Russian Federation.

As a result of studying a special course on constitutional justice the student must:

1. Have a theoretical understanding of the essence, forms and features of constitutional review.

basic rules governing constitutional control in the Russian Federation.

bodies exercising constitutional control.

3. Navigate in procedural rules regulating the constitutional trial.

The scope of the discipline and types of educational work

Thematic plan

(discipline sections, topics of classes, number of hours)

P / p No.	Sections (topics) of the discipline	Number of hours by type of occupation (according to the curriculum)
lectures	seminars
1.	Judicial constitutional review: origin and main stages of development		-
2.	Judicial-constitutional structure
3.	Constitutional Judicial Procedural Law
4.	Principles of constitutional justice	-	-
5.	Jurisdiction of cases		-
6.	Participants in the constitutional trial. Procedural terms. Court expenses and fines.	-
7.	Proof and evidence in constitutional proceedings	-	-
8.	Submission of applications and their preliminary consideration in the Constitutional Court.
9.	Trial
10.	Decisions of the Constitutional Court
	Consideration of cases on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation
12.	Consideration of cases on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with normative acts of state authorities and agreements between them
13.	Consideration of cases on the constitutionality of laws on complaints of violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens
14.	Consideration of cases on the constitutionality of laws at the request of the courts
15.	Consideration of cases on compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of international treaties of the Russian Federation that have not entered into force
16.	Consideration of cases on disputes on competence
17.	Consideration of other categories of cases		-
18.	Constitutional trial in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation		-
19.	Stages and procedure for considering cases in constitutional (charter) courts		-
20.	The relationship between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the constitutional (charter) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The relationship of the constitutional (charter) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction, other public authorities		-
	Total

Course program

Topic 20. The relationship of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the constitutional (charter) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The relationship of the constitutional (charter) courts of the Russian Federation with courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction, other state authorities

2. The Advisory Council of the Chairmen of the Constitutional (Statutory) Control Bodies in the Russian Federation.

3. Delineation of competence between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

4. Problems and perspectives of relationships.

5. The relationship of constitutional (charter) courts with courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction.

6. The relationship of constitutional (charter) courts with other government bodies and public associations.

Thematic plan of seminars

Lesson number	Seminar topic	Number of hours according to the curriculum
seminars
*	1. Judicial constitutional review: the emergence and main stages of development	-
1.	2. Judicial-constitutional structure
2.	3. Constitutional judicial procedural law
*	4. Principles of constitutional justice	-
*	5. Jurisdiction of cases	-
3.	6. Participants in the constitutional trial. Procedural terms. Legal expenses and fines.
*	7. Proof and evidence in constitutional proceedings	-
4.	8. Submission of applications and their preliminary consideration in the Constitutional Court.
5.	9. Litigation
6.	10. Decisions of the Constitutional Court
7.	11. Consideration of cases on the interpretation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation
8.	12. Consideration of cases on the compliance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with normative acts of state authorities and agreements between them
9.	13. Consideration of cases on the constitutionality of laws on complaints of violation of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens
10.	14. Consideration of cases on the constitutionality of laws at the request of the courts
11.	15. Consideration of cases on compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation that have not entered into force international treaties of the Russian Federation
12.	16. Consideration of cases on disputes on competence
*	17. Consideration of other categories of cases
*	18. Constitutional trial in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation	-
*	19. Stages and procedure for considering cases in constitutional (charter) courts	-
*	20. The relationship of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the constitutional (charter) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The relationship of the constitutional (charter) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with the courts of general and arbitration jurisdiction, other state authorities	-
	total

* Topics for self-study

Seminar plans

Seminars as one of the forms of mastering the educational material are aimed at studying the most urgent and difficult problems for the student to consider independently. In preparation for practical training students learn to work with normative and legal sources, as well as with special literature. The lessons themselves are designed to develop students' ability to think logically, have their own opinion on debatable issues, and draw independent conclusions.

Topic 1. Judicial constitutional review:

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. No. 3. Art.1447.

Article 607.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51. Article 4824.

Art. 2334.

The main

Additional

7. Abrosimova E.B. Judicial power in the Russian Federation: system and principles. M., 2001.

8. Harutyunyan G.G. Constitutional control: the nature of the functioning and development of the system. M., 1997.

9. Boytsova V.V. Constitutional justice in post-communist countries // Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. 1997.

10. Vitruk N.V. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: concepts, nature, legal force and meaning // Constitutional justice in post-communist countries. M., 1999.

11. Vitruk N.V., Lazarev L.V., Ebzeev B.S. Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". A comment. M., 1996.

12. Vitruk N.V. Constitutional justice in Russia (1991-2001): Essays on theory and practice. M., 2001.

13. Mityukov M.A. Constitutional courts in the post-Soviet space. Comparative study of legislation and judicial practice. M., 1999.

14. Mityukov M.A. On the history of constitutional justice in Russia. M., 2002.

15. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Judicial constitutional review in foreign countries... Rostov n / a, 1992.

16. Petrukhin I.L. Constitutional justice in the USSR. M., 1981.

17. Seleznev N.V. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system judiciary... M., 1998.

18. Topornin B.N. Russian constitutionalism on modern stage// Russian constitutionalism: problems and solutions. M., 1999.

19. Umnova I.A. Constitutional foundations modern Russian federalism. M., 1998.

20. Umnova I.A. Federalism and constitutional justice in the Russian Federation // Federalism, regional management and local self-government. M., 1993. No. 3.

21. Chirkin V.E. Constitutional review bodies: Russia and international experience // Journal Russian law. 1998. № 4/5.

22. Schwartz G. Constitutional courts: in general and in particular // Constitutional law: Eastern European review. 1993. No. 2.

23. Shulzhenko Yu.L. Constitutional control in Russia. M., 1995.

Seminar 1 (2 hours)

Topic 2. Judicial-constitutional structure

Issues for discussion:

1. The constitutional and legal foundations of the functioning of judicial constitutional control in modern Russia.

2. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: basic principles of organization and formation.

3. The order of formation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The structure of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

4. Questions to be considered in plenary sessions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Issues considered in the sessions of the chambers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

5. Organizational and technical forms of work of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and its auxiliary services. Office of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

6.Status of a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

Literature

Normative legal acts

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

7. Federal constitutional law of December 31, 1996 "On the judicial system of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1997. No. 1.

8. Law of the Russian Federation of June 26, 1992 "On the status of judges in the Russian Federation" as amended by the Federal Law of June 21, 1995 // SZ R. 1995. No. 26.

9. Resolution of the Federation Council of October 25, 1994 "On the procedure for swearing in judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. No. 28.

10. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 14, 1995 "On measures to ensure material guarantees of independence of judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 38.

11. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 15, 1995 "On ensuring the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 38.

12. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of February 7, 2000 "On ensuring the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and on the provision of state social guarantees judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and members of their families "as amended on June 24, 2002 // SZ RF. 2000. No. 7. 2002. No. 26.

13. Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Adopted at the plenary session of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on March 1, 1995 (with additional and amendments as of March 1, 2003) // Collection of normative acts on the court and the status of the Court of the Russian Federation. Second edition. Book one. M., 2000.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Baishev Zh. Judicial protection Constitution. Almaty, 1994.

3. Benidze O. Decisions of the Constitutional Court and their execution // Constitutional justice. Bulletin of the Conference of Constitutional Control Organs of the Countries of Young Democracy. Issue 3 (5) / Published by the Center for Constitutional Law of the Republic of Armenia. Yerevan, 1999.

4. Bogdanova N.A. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system of constitutional law // VKS RF. 1997. No. 3.

5. Vitruk N.V. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: concepts, nature, legal force and meaning // Constitutional justice in post-communist countries. M., 1999.

6. Gadzhiev G. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as a source of constitutional law // Constitutional law: Eastern European review. 1999. No. 3.

7. Lazarev L.V. Constitutional Court of Russia and the development of constitutional law // Journal of Russian law. 1997. No. 11.

8. Mavcic A. Constitutional courts: models of work in accordance with federal government systems// Collection of materials scientific and practical conference Constitutional Courts of Russia, Germany, Slovenia. Petrozavodsk, 1998.

9. Seleznev N.V. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the judiciary. M., 1998.

10. Current archive of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

11. Ebzeev B.S. Constitution. Constitutional state. Constitutional Court. M., 1997.

Seminar 2 (2 hours)

Literature

Normative legal acts

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

2. Barnashov A.M., Mityukov M.A. Essays on constitutional justice. Comparative legal study of legislation and judicial practice. Tomsk, 1999.

3. Wieser B. Some reflections on the hierarchy of norms in the system of constitutional law of the Russian Federation // Constitutional law: Eastern European review. 1999. No. 2.

4. Vitruk N.V., Lazarev L.V., Ebzeev B.S. Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". A comment. M., 1996.

5. Gadzhiev G. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as a source of constitutional law // Constitutional law: Eastern European review. 1999. No. 3.

6. Gorshenev V.M. About nature procedural law// Jurisprudence. 1974. No. 2.

7. Goshchulyak V.V. Constitutional and statutory legislation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. M., 1999.

8.Zarzhevskaya T.D. Procedural guarantees of constitutionalism // Russian constitutionalism: problems and solutions. M., 1999.

9. Kasumov F.Z. Procedural mechanism for the implementation of the Constitution of the USSR: Author's abstract. dis .: Cand. jurid. sciences. M., 1985.

10. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional process. Criteria and types of sectoral self-determination in the system of Russian law // Scientific notes: Collection of articles. scientific. Proceedings of the RSU. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.

11. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional judicial procedural law (constitutional justice): at the origins of the branch of law, science and academic discipline// North Caucasian legal bulletin. 1998. No. 2.

12. Pryakhina T.M. Constitutional process: interpretation of the definition // Constitutional development of Russia: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific. articles. Saratov, 2000. Issue. 3.

13. Salikov M.S. On the need to create a course "Constitutional and procedural in the Russian Federation" // Improvement of teaching methods and organization of the learning process in law schools of Russia: Proceedings of the All-Russian. educational method. conf. (November 16-17, 2000). Yekaterinburg, 2000.

14. Salikov M.S. The subject of constitutional procedural law of the Russian Federation // Russian legal journal. 2000. No. 1.

15. Salikov M.S. Constitutional procedural law as a science, industry and academic discipline // Law and Politics. 2000. No. 4.

16. Khabrieva T.Ya. Procedural issues interpretation of the Constitution in the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // State and Law. 1996. No. 10.

17. Shulzhenko Yu.L., Yudin Yu.A. Constitutional justice in a federal state. M., 2000.

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Avakyan S.A. Constitution of Russia: nature, evolution, modernity. M., 1997.

2. Bogdanova N.A. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system of constitutional law // VKS RF. 1997. No. 3.

3. Boykov A.D. Third power in Russia. M., 1997.

5. Mityukov M.A. On the history of constitutional justice in Russia. M., 2002.

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

7. Federal Constitutional Law on October 10, 1995 "On the Referendum of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 42.

8. Federal constitutional law of June 28, 2004 "On the referendum of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 2004. No. 27.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Harutyunyan G.G. Actual problems resolution of disputes about competence // Constitutional justice. Bulletin of the Conference of Constitutional Control Organs of the Countries of Young Democracy. Issue 3 (5) / Published by the Center for Constitutional Law of the Republic of Armenia. Yerevan, 1999.

2. Belkin A.A. Issues of the legal force of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // VKS RF. 1997. No. 2.

3. Bogdanova N.A. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system of constitutional law // VKS RF. 1997. No. 3.

4. Vitruk N.V. Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: concepts, nature, legal force and meaning // Constitutional justice in post-communist countries. M., 1999.

5. Vitruk N.V., Lazarev L.V., Ebzeev B.S. Federal Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation". A comment. M., 1996.

6. Gadzhiev G.A. Jurisdiction and admissibility of appeals to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Journal of Russian Law. 1997. No. 6.

7. Luchin V.O. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Implementation problems. M., 2002.

8. Morshchakova T.G. Judicial protection of the fundamental rights of citizens in general and constitutional proceedings: correlation and features // Materials of the Russian-British seminar. M., 1996.

9. Morshchakov T.G. Delineation of competence between the Constitutional Court and other courts of the Russian Federation // VKS RF. 1997. No. 3.

10. Hovsepyan Zh.I. From the experience of the Russian Federation in resolving constitutional disputes about competence // Constitutional Justice. Questions of theory and practice. Yerevan, 2000.

Seminar 3 (2 hours)

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

7. Law of the Russian Federation of June 26, 1992 "On the status of judges in the Russian Federation" as amended by the Federal Law of June 21, 1995 // SZ R. 1995. No. 26.

8. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 24, 1995 "On the Plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 18.

9. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 5, 1995 "On approval of the Regulations on the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1995. No. 28.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Doronina ON, Luchin V.O. Citizens' complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. M., 1998.

2. Lusher F. Constitutional protection rights and freedoms of the individual / ed. S.V. Bobotov. M., 1993.

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

2. Luchin V.O. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Implementation problems. M., 2002.

3. Lusher F. Constitutional protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual / ed. S.V. Bobotov. M., 1993.

4. Morshchakova T.G. Judicial protection of the fundamental rights of citizens in general and constitutional proceedings: correlation and features // Materials of the Russian-British seminar. M., 1996.

Seminar 4 (2 hours)

Topic 8. Submission of applications and their preliminary consideration

At the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation

Issues for discussion:

1. Submission of an appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

2. Consideration of the appeal by the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

3. Preliminary study of the appeal by the judge.

4. Acceptance or refusal to accept the appeal for consideration.

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Gadzhiev G.A. Jurisdiction and admissibility of appeals to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Journal of Russian Law. 1997. No. 6.

2. Mavchich A. Constitutional courts: models of work in accordance with federal state systems // Collection of materials of the scientific-practical conference of the Constitutional Courts of Russia, Germany, Slovenia. Petrozavodsk, 1998.

3. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional process. Criteria and types of sectoral self-determination in the system of Russian law // Scientific notes: Collection of articles. scientific. Proceedings of the RSU. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.

4. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional judicial procedural law (constitutional justice): at the origins of the branch of law, science and academic discipline // North Caucasian legal bulletin. 1998. No. 2.

5. Regulations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Constitutional justice in the CIS and Baltic countries. M., 1998.

Seminar 5 (2 hours)

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

6. Federal Constitutional Law of April 5, 2005 "On Amendments to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2005. No. 15.

The main

1. * Vitruk N.V. Constitutional legal proceedings. Textbook for universities. // M. INFRA. 2004.

Additional

1. Bogdanova N.A. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the system of constitutional law // VKS RF. 1997. No. 3.

2. Gadzhiev G.A. Jurisdiction and admissibility of appeals to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Journal of Russian Law. 1997. No. 6.

3. Doronina ON, Luchin V.O. Citizens' complaints to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. M., 1998.

4. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. Problematic comment. M., 1997.

5. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional process. Criteria and types of sectoral self-determination in the system of Russian law // Scientific notes: Collection of articles. scientific. Proceedings of the RSU. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.

6. Hovsepyan Zh.I. Constitutional judicial procedural law (constitutional justice): at the origins of the branch of law, science and academic discipline // North Caucasian legal bulletin. 1998. No. 2.

7. Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Constitutional justice in the CIS and Baltic countries. M., 1998.

8. Salikov M.S. . Constitutional and judicial protection of human rights in Russia // Collection of materials of the V World Congress of the WFAC UNESCO. Yekaterinburg, 1999.

9. Salikov M.S. Criteria for the admissibility of appeals to constitutional courts (statutory) courts // Bulletin of the Statutory Court of the Sverdlovsk Region. 2000. No. 1.

Seminar 6 (2 hours)

Literature

Normative legal acts

2. Federal Constitutional Law of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. # 13.

3. Federal Constitutional Law of February 8, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 7.

4. Federal Constitutional Law of December 15, 2001 "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2001. No. 51.

5. Federal Constitutional Law of June 7, 2004 "On Amendments to Article 100 of the Federal Constitutional Law" On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation "// SZ RF. 2004. No. 24.

Regulations:

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on 12.12.1993) (as amended on 21.07.2014) // Official Internet portal of legal information http://www.pravo.gov.ru , 01.08.2014

2. On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: FKZ RF dated 21.07.1994 N 1-FKZ (as amended on 08.06.2015) // SZ RF. - 1994. - No. 13. - Art. 1447.

Main literature:

1. Constitutional control in foreign countries: Tutorial- 2nd ed. rev. and add. / Maklakov V.V. Moscow: INFRA-M, 2010.672 p.

2. Vitruk N. V. Constitutional justice. Judicial-constitutional law and process: Textbook. allowance. 3rd ed. revised and add. - M: Norma, 2011 .-- 592 p.

3. Chirkin V. E. Bodies of constitutional control: Russia and international experience // Journal of Russian law. 1998. No. 4/5. S. 145-155.

Constitutional development in modern world(at the national and supranational levels) indicates a significant rise in the judiciary, a serious expansion of its jurisdiction and an increase in the role in resolving constitutional and other legal conflicts (disputes, collisions, etc.) , as it seems to many modern researchers, is the spread in new regions of the world (in Central and Eastern Europe, the CIS and Baltic countries, etc.) of judicial constitutional control.

In modern civilized states, constitutional control, along with other political and legal institutions, is the most important means of ensuring the real existence of constitutionalism. According to modern researchers, the constitutional control of laws adopted by parliament is nowadays an essential characteristic. constitutional state.

As written constitutions, especially of a codified nature, became an integral requirement, and often a condition and fundamental legal guarantee development of democratic and the rule of law, there was a need to provide them with a special mechanism legal protection... Some researchers believe that judicial review is not vital to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the written constitution. Although, in their opinion, the fact of distribution in Western countries, regardless of their specific legal system, a system of oversight that empowers the courts to overturn legislation that is contrary to the constitution. Other researchers have approached the rationale for judicial review in terms of the conditions of democracy. They address the issue of the relationship between democratic governance and judicial review and believe that the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation is valiantly unfading in constitutional jurisprudence. At the same time, J. Waldron, in a polemic with R. Dvorkin, comes to the conclusion, among other things, about the limited influence of judicial review on the fair implementation of democratic government. He argues that there is no reason to think that judicial oversight improves the quality of the debate about political participation in society, and he leaves open the question of whether judicial oversight makes any society (not just the United States) fairer than where there is no such practice.

Having a written constitution that heads the hierarchy legal regulations, does necessary verification newly issued legal acts for the consistency of its provisions. Influencing the entire process of applying law, constitutional control, in turn, is influenced by legal, geopolitical, socio-economic, moral and ethical factors that largely determine the originality of its system and procedure for implementation. Control over the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts is a type of exercising control power in the state. Such control activities may be under the jurisdiction of various state bodies: courts general jurisdiction, special quasi-judicial bodies, parliament or president. This largely depends on belonging to the Romano-Germanic or Anglo-Saxon legal system, the constitutional model of the separation of powers, the specifics of the organization of the judiciary (based on the principle of unity or polysystemicity). However, it is the constitutional justice that has a special mission of maintaining constitutional legality and law and order. Since the second half of the twentieth century, special judicial and quasi-judicial bodies of constitutional control have been widely developed in Western European states, which are now perceived as an integral part of the European legal tradition. With a difference in specific formulations and national characteristics, constitutional control is understood as the activities of state bodies aimed at verifying the compliance with constitutional norms of legal acts and actions of public authorities and local government, and in some countries and the activities of public associations participating in the implementation of public functions.

To form Russian system constitutional review was influenced by circumstances of various nature, among which the most important are three: type of legal system; the specificity of the prevailing by the beginning of the 90s. the judicial system; features of the territorial organization Russian state.

Currently, there is a transformation of the legal system of Russia, which for a long period of time belonged to and was the nucleus of the family of socialist law. Until the transformation process is completed. However, it testifies to the gradual reintegration of Russia along with other European post-socialist states into the Romano-Germanic legal family, to which they all once belonged and retained a predisposition to it under the conditions of the socialist legal system. In this regard, when organizing the Russian system of constitutional review, primarily constitutional justice, the European experience and legal tradition were taken into account. Therefore, the judicial constitutional review in Russia acquired many features of the European model, the developer of which was the famous Austrian lawyer, author of the pure doctrine of law, H. Kelsen (Hans Kelsen). The characteristic features of this model are the following: exercise of constitutional control by specially established judicial or quasi-judicial bodies; a combination of concrete and abstract constitutional proceedings; recognition of a legal act as unconstitutional means, in essence, its legal abolition.

The development of the judicial system in Russia since the early 90s. went within the framework of the European trend of striving for a polysystemic approach in the organization of the judiciary, when along with the system common courts specialized courts are being created. V soviet period the courts were unified system that meets the requirements of centralized management. At the present time, the federal judicial system includes, first, a system of general courts, a subsystem of which are military courts; secondly, the system arbitration courts; thirdly, constitutional justice, which has become the main institution of constitutional review.

In the modern Russian legal system, which is undergoing radical reform, three main types of constitutional review can be distinguished, depending on which body of the state it is carried out. This is control exercised on the territory of the entire federal state by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the constitutional (statutory) courts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and the President of the Russian Federation. As constitutional (charter) courts are formed in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (their creation is provided for by the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 "On the Judicial System of the Russian Federation"), their constitutions and statutes, which are essentially the basic laws of 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, will have their own constitutional bodies. (statutory) control. By the beginning of 2000, the constitutions and charters of 35 constituent entities of the Russian Federation provided for the possibility of creating such courts. Moreover, the adjustment of the "regional" constitutions continues. Therefore, the acting Russian legislation involves the implementation of constitutional review on federal level in relation to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and at the level of the subjects of the federation in relation to their constitutions and statutes. The expediency of developing such a two-tier control is explained by the federal nature of the Russian state, in which the constitutions and charters of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are called upon to play the same role, with certain differences, as the federal constitution in relation to all other legal acts. In addition, the control over constitutionality carried out by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is not universal, since it does not apply to all types of regulatory legal acts.

The formation of an effective system of constitutional control is important for the effective functioning of any democratically organized state. As A. Blankenagel notes, constitutional control is an activity that consists in limiting power and resolving conflicts. In Russia, this task is of particular importance in connection with the process of reforming all branches of law, the development of federal relations and the creation of their own state-legal systems in the subjects of the federation. Giving these processes a civilized character is not within the power of the constitutional control bodies alone, however, they can indicate the legal boundaries of the reforms being carried out, controlling the rule-making activities of various state bodies. The need to remove unconstitutional legal acts from the legal system was also associated with the problem of the “war of laws” that accompanied state-legal construction in the constituent entities of the Federation.

The main body bearing the burden of constitutional control in Russia is the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, acting after the adoption of the new federal Constitution on the basis of the Federal Constitutional Law (hereinafter - FKZ) of July 21, 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation".

The powers of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to exercise constitutional control can be divided into two groups:

1) powers to implement abstract control;

2) the authority to implement specific control.

The origins of judicial review. The emergence of judicial control is associated with the activities of the Privy Council under the British monarch in the 17th century. He had the right to invalidate statutes issued by the legislatures of the colonies in the event of their conflict with the colonial charters or common law. This practice was based on the ideas of the judge and statesman of England E. Coke, who in 1610, referring to the principles common law, invalidated the law passed by the British Parliament. The activities of the Privy Council influenced the emergence of constitutional review in the United States, where even before the constitutional formation of the federation, state courts practiced checking state laws in terms of their compliance with the state constitution.

American model of judicial constitutional review. Within the framework of the American model, constitutional disputes are considered by courts of general jurisdiction in the implementation of legal proceedings in specific cases - criminal, civil, and administrative.

In some states, verification of the constitutionality of laws and other legal acts is carried out by all courts of the country from lower to higher (for example, in the USA, Argentina, Mexico, Japan), in others, this right belongs only to the Supreme Court, and in a number of federal states - also to the highest courts. subjects of the Federation (for example, in Australia, India, Canada).

Confession judgment in the case of decentralized control of an act or its individual provision, unconstitutional is, as a rule, binding only for the parties to the case. If it comes to the Supreme Court, then its decision on the constitutionality of the act becomes binding on all courts of the country. The declared unconstitutional provision of the act is perceived by the courts as if it no longer exists, in fact has lost its force, although formally it remains in the legal system until a possible abolition by parliament. In countries where lower courts are not entitled to check the constitutionality of legal acts, if such an issue arises during the consideration of a specific case, it is transferred to the higher judicial instance to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of the applicable legal act.

American constitutional oversight has the following features.

1) Review of constitutionality is universal in nature and covers laws, other regulations taken by various bodies public authority... Any violation of the obligatory hierarchy of legal norms or an action that does not have a basis can be declared inconsistent with the Constitution. legal basis, and therefore violates due process of law. Due process is stipulated by the 5th (1791) and 14th (1868) amendments to the US Constitution.

2) Constitutional supervision is carried out in a decentralized manner, since it can be carried out by any court when considering any case, and deconcentrated, that is, from time to time, when a constitutional issue arises in the course of considering a particular case.

3) In form, constitutional supervision is casual, tied to a specific case. Consideration of such a case takes place with binding decision the question of the constitutionality of the applicable norm or provision of a legal act. The problem of constitutionality is solved along the way during the consideration of the case on the merits.

4) Review of constitutionality is relative, since court decisions have binding force only for the disputing parties (inter partes) and does not apply to all law enforcement actors. Recognizing unconstitutionality legal norm, the courts interpret it as non-existent (null and void) and do not take it into account when making an appropriate decision on the merits of the dispute. But such a norm is not specifically canceled as a norm. overall value(erga omnes).

In modern studies, the following shortcomings of the American model are noted. Firstly, the court is bound, in resolving constitutional issues, by the factual circumstances of the civil and criminal cases it considers. Secondly, the incidental solution of the issues of constitutionality of legal acts used in resolving the case on the merits lengthens the time of the proceedings. Thirdly, the binding nature of the decisions taken applies only to the parties in a particular case. Fourth, the right to challenge the unconstitutionality of regulatory legal acts and actions of state bodies is granted only to individuals. Based on the ideas of G. Kelsen, the European model was aimed at overcoming the shortcomings of the American model.

European model of judicial constitutional review. The main features of the European model:

1) to resolve constitutional disputes, a specialized body of constitutional justice is created, which is not part of the system of courts of general jurisdiction and occupies an autonomous position in the judicial system of the country;

2) implementation of constitutional review for such a body is the main function;

3) special legal position constitutional courts, their competence and order of activity are determined by the constitution of the country and special laws on them;

4) the recruitment of constitutional courts occurs on the basis of higher requirements for candidates for judges, who become professors of law, professional judges, high-ranking government officials; in the formation of these bodies, as a rule, several branches of government are involved;

5) the decisions of the constitutional review body are generally binding, that is, they are binding for all subjects of law, and not only for the parties to the case; as the Spanish professor of constitutional law notes, a feature of the European model - abstract control leads to the invalidation of the law with the general effect ( erga omnes), if the law is contrary to the constitution;

6) the establishment of a specialized body of constitutional jurisdiction does not deprive other courts of the authority to control the constitutionality of acts of state bodies outside the jurisdiction constitutional court.

Types of control. Material and formal constitutional control are distinguished depending on the content. Material control presupposes a check by the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction for compliance with the constitution of a legal act or its separate provision in terms of content. Formal control means a check for compliance with the constitution of the adoption procedure, the procedure for the publication and enactment of a legal act, as well as the form of a legal act.

Forms of control. In the modern world, there are two main forms of constitutional control from the point of view of the stage of the law-making process at which it is carried out - preliminary (preventive, preventive) and subsequent (repressive) control.

Preliminary control means checking the constitutionality of laws (bills) after their adoption by parliament, but before promulgation and entry into force.

Subsequent control means reviewing the constitutionality of legal acts that have come into force and in force.