Uncategorized

A little about the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and how to touch it / SurprizingFacts

I. Information on the legal act and the state body that adopted it:

Federal Constitutional Law of 21.07.1994 No. 1-FKZ (Edited on December 28, 2016) "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation", adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on June 24, 1994 Year at the address, at the address 109012, ul. Okhotny Ryad, 1, published in the "Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation", 25.07.1994, N 13, art. 1447.

II. The basis for the appeal:

In accordance with Article 33 and Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 3, Article 36, Article 96 and Article 97 of the N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Federation "of July 21, 1994, I exercise my right to appeal.

In accordance with Part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, I have the right to challenge any law, including. Having the status of the Federal Constitutional Law. The same article refers to the fact that the procedure is established, I quote: "… by federal law."

Proceeding from the fact that Art. 125 of the RF Constitution equates the challenged "federal constitutional law" with the broader term "federal law", the Constitutional Court of the RF must recognize that a legal act of the "federal constitutional law" class is a special case of the broader term "federal law" and is subject to the same challenge procedure . Otherwise, the N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of July 21, 1994, can not be used to regulate the application to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

According to art. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948 and part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, I have the right to restore my rights in a competent national court.

This appeal Is not an appeal against the earlier ruling by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, but is a challenge to the norms of the federal law that were used in a particular case.

III. The essence of the matter and my position:

.1. Earlier I tried to challenge the openly discriminatory norms of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation applied to me, but I received a formal refusal not in essence because of violation of my constitutional rights, Article 96 and Article 97 of the N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of July 21, 1994. In defiance of part 4 of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The above definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is attached.

I quote the text of part 4 of Art. 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

"The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the complaints of violations of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens and at the request of the courts verifies the constitutionality of the law applied or to be applied in a particular case, in accordance with the procedure established by federal law. "

I partially quote the definition of the term" deed "from the Great Explanatory Dictionary:

" 1. Work, occupation, activity … 2. Practical activity, action (as opposed to thoughts, words). … 3. That which directly, closely touches someone, smth., Comes into smb.'s life. Management, tasks, duties, etc. …9. Collection of documents relating to Person, event, fact; "

It follows directly from the text of the constitutional norm and the interpretations of the word" case "in the annex that:

a) a citizen has the right to challenge the norm of the law even if it was not applied in practice, But only exists in the form of an enacted legal act that is enforceable by all without exception under Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

b) the notion of a "concrete case" clearly does not refer only to a narrow range of "court cases" and Can be widely interpreted in any field that has the slightest documentary Confirming – for example, directly contrary to the Constitution published a federal law

.2.. Existing norms of art. 96 N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of July 21, 1994, contradict my right to challenge the law on the fact of its existence. Requires me to attach some additional documents from certain officials, confirming the application of a specific legal act. I consider this:

a) an unreasonable additional obstacle in the exercise of my already mentioned constitutional rights, t. Equality before the law and the obligation to comply with the published laws directly proceeds from Article 15 and Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

b) an insurmountable obstacle to challenging the law subject to application, but without the established circle of responsible officials associated with it.

.3. Existing norms of art. 97 N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of July 21, 1994, narrow the scope of the broad term "case" only to court cases, the consideration of which was completed. This contradicts both the meaning of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the text of Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which clearly implies challenging laws even if they were not actually applied, but only to be applied. This contradicts the theory of a legal democratic state with the separation of branches of power.

And also, in accordance with Part 5 of Art. 208. "Code of Administrative Justice of the Russian Federation" of 08.03.2015 N 21-FZ, I have no opportunity to defend my constitutional rights in another court, which makes it impossible to obtain the required in Art. 97 N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" judgment, remaining a law-abiding citizen. Accordingly, I do not have the actual opportunity to use my constitutional rights by observing the law.

.4. In accordance with Article 8. "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, I have the right to apply to the competent national court for the restoration of my violated rights, but on the fact of the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 27, 2017 St.96 and st.97 N1-FKZ "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" of July 21, 1994, together with part 5 of Art. 208. The Code of Administrative Court Procedure of the Russian Federation No. 21-FZ of 08.03.2015 does not give me this opportunity, directly violate these international obligations of the Russian Federation and my constitutional rights under Article 33 and Article 125 of the Constitution RF