ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES OF INVOLVING EXPERTS BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

ПРАВОПРИМЕНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ПРАКТИКА ПРИВЛЕЧЕНИЯ ЭКСПЕРТОВ КОНСТИТУЦИОННЫМ СУДОМ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ

Legal appraisal has become ingrained in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. For instance, more than 80 experts' statements were heard and more than 35 written counter replies and experts' commentaries were heard and analyzed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation over the period from 1995 to 2022. 766 rulings have been adopted over the thirty-year period of the Constitutional Court’s functioning.

Taking into account the specific character of the constitutional proceedings of the Russian Federation, it can be concluded that the subject of the expert evidence production is an external competent person with good expertise in the field of constitutional or other branches of law [1] or constitutional and legal regulation of state activity involved to rate the compliance of submitted documents with the constitutional propositions of the Russian Federation and the doctrinal strategy of state construction [17].

The analysis of court practice revealed that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation involved the most respected Russian legal scholars with good expertise in both constitutional and theoretical legal fields.  In fact, scholars with expertise not only in the legal field but in other spheres as well acted as experts in court.

For instance, a legal scholar with specialty in the field of pension legislation, M.L. Zakharov acted as an expert in the case over the constitutionality verification of the Law “Concerning State Pensions in the RSFSR” of the RSFSR from 1990 [4].

A specialist in the field of agricultural law acted as an expert in the case over the constitutionality verification of the first and the second parts of Civil Rule 560 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR on account of A.B. Naumov’s complaint [5].

There was a specialist in the field of military doctrine among the experts in the case over the constitutionality verification of a number of legal acts of the President and the Government of the Russian Federation adopted in the context of settling the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic [3].

Academic specialists from the State Russian Language Institute of RAS acted as experts in the case over the constitutionality verification of Part 4 of Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR on account of complaints by B.V. Antipov, R.L. Gitis and S.V. Abramov. They gave an opinion on the meaning of the terms “advocate” and “defense attorney” and their definitions in the Russian literary language [9].

Representatives from MVD Academy and the Research Institute for the Problems of Legality, Law and Order Consolidation of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation acted as experts in the case over the constitutionality verification of Part 5 of the Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR on account of complaint by V.V. Schelukhin [7].

Cases over the constitutionality verification of several provisions of the Russian Law “Concerning the Fundamental Principles of the Taxation System in the Russian Federation”, the Law “Concerning the Sales Tax”, of Chuvash Republic, the Law “Concerning the Sales Tax” of the Kirov Region and the Law “Concerning the Sales Tax” of the Chelyabinsk Region can serve as examples of involving specialists in the field of tax law as experts. In these cases opinions were given by such specialists as M.F. Ivlieva, Ph.D. of Juridical Sciences, and E.N. Shiryaeva, Holder of an Advanced Doctorate (Doctor of Science) in Philological Sciences [10].

Yu.B. Fogelson, PhD of Engineering Sciences, acted as an expert in order to clarify the definitions of terms, to collect information and precedents of its implementation in the field of compulsory civil liability insurance of owners of motor vehicles for the Constitutional Court judges [2].

Representatives from different organizations and institutions can also act as experts. For instance, opinions of S.G. Pepelyaev, the director of tax consulting division of Financial and Accounting Consultants audit company, Ph.D. of Juridical Sciences, were presented in the case over the constitutionality verification of certain provisions of the Law “Concerning Road Funds in the Russian Federation” of the Russian Federation and in the case over the constitutionality verification of a number of normative acts of Moscow and the Moscow Region, Stavropol Region, Voronezh Region and the city of Voronezh regulating  the procedure for registration of people arriving for permanent residence in the mentioned regions [6].

Constitutional expert study can also be carried out by an organization. In this case, expert rating is given individually as well, i.e., each expert gives an opinion on their own behalf. For instance, expert opinions in the case over the constitutionality verification of certain provisions of the Law “Concerning the recall of a local representative body deputy” of the Krasnoyarsk Region and the Law “Concerning the recall of a local representative body deputy, an elected official of local self-government in Koryak Autonomous District” of the Koryak Autonomous District were given not only by S.A. Avakyan, Ph.D. of Juridical Sciences, but also by the Moscow State Law Academy. Another example in which G.V. Vaipan from the autonomous non-commercial organization “Institute of Law and Public Policy” and N.A. Sheveleva from the St. Petersburg State University acted as experts in the case over the adjudication of the question of the possibility to execute, in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of “OJSC YUKOS Oil Company vs. Russia” from 2014 [14].

Case studies monitoring shows that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation often goes to the same experts. Mostly, they represent different fields of law and have PhD in Law degrees, for instance, S.A. Avakyan, A.S. Mikhlin, V.M. Savitskiy, A.E. Zhalinskiy, E.I. Kozlova, M.I. Piskotin, V.N. Litovkin, M.F. Ivlieva, O.M. Oleynik, S.G. Pepelyaev, A.E. Postnikov, G.A. Volkov, D.V. Pyatkov, V.N. Litovkin, L.V. Schennikova and others. It is explained by the fact that these experts’ conclusions include thorough analysis as well as additional sources of information which, in large measure, comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court.

Experts’ opinions were heard by the Constitutional Court more actively over the period from 1955 to 2002. From 2002 to 2022 the intensity of experts’ opinions usage decreased.

The last Constitutional Court ruling with reference to an expert’s opinion was Ruling 17-П from 2010 “On constitutionality verification of the List of kinds of salaries and other kinds of income from which alimony can be deducted, on the aacount of complaint by L.R. Amayakan” [13].  D.A. Petrova, Ph.D. of Juridical Sciences, acted as an expert. After that, experts’ opinions and conclusions were not used in the Constitutional Court practice and this institution became inactive. However, in 2018 the Constitutional Court used in its work the conclusion made by President of Russia’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights in the case over the constitutionality verification of Federal Law provisions “Concerning Military Duty and Military Service” on account of the inquiry by Bugulma city court in the Republic of Tatarstan [15].

Thus, the following conclusions can be made from analyzing the thirty-year practice of using experts’ opinions in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation:

1. The authors of expert statements are the most respectable legal scholars with good expertise in both constitutional and theoretical legal fields as well as in other branches of law.

2. The results of their expert evaluations are of great importance due to their scholarly armament. It largely determines the significance of the experts’ opinions for the Constitutional Court decision-making.

3. Significant part of the experts were involved in cases related to civil law, civil procedural law, pension law, criminal law, criminal procedure law, tax law, financial law.

References:

1. Federal Constitutional LawNo.1-ФКЗ “Concerning the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation” from July 21, 1994 (rev. from July 01, 2021) (as amended effective of December 01, 2021) [Electronic resource].  Latest update: February 23, 2023. Access from the GARANT system // “GARANT System” EPR
2. Regulation of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (adopted by the ruling of the Constitutional Court № 2-1/6 from March 01, 1995 г.) (as amended on January 24, 2011) (with amendments and supplements from March 24, 2022) [Electronic resource].  Latest update: February 23, 2023. Access from the GARANT system // “GARANT System” EPR.
3. Ruling of the Constitutional Court № 10-П from July 31, 1995 «Concerning the constitutionality verification of  Russian Federation Presidential Decree № 2137 from November 30, 1994 “Concerning measures for constitutional legitimacy and public order restoration within the territory of the Chechen Republic”, Russian Federation Presidential Decree № 2166 from December 9, 1994 “Concerning measures for suppression of illegal armed group activities within the territory of the Chechen Republic and Ossetian-Ingush conflict area” Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation  № 1360 from December 9, 1994 “Concerning provision for national security and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, legitimacy of citizens’ political rights and freedoms, disarmament of illegal armed groups within the territory of the Chechen Republic and adjacent regions of North Caucasus”, Russian Federation Presidential Decree № 1833 from November 2, 1993 “Concerning Doctrinal Foundations of the Russian Federation” [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30248.pdf.
4. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 11-П from October 16, 1995 “On the case over the constitutionality verification of Article 124 of the RSFSR Law “Concerning State Pensions In the RSFSR” from November 21, 1990 on account of complaints by G.G. Arderikhin, N.G. Popkova, G.A. Bobyreva, N.V. Kotsyubka”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30363.pdf.
5. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 1-П from January 16, 1996 “Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of Parts 1 and 2 of Article 560 of the Civil Code of the RSFSR on account of complaints by A.B. Naumov” [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30263.pdf.
6. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 9-П from April 04, 1996 “Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of a number of normative acts of Moscow and the Moscow Region, Stavropol Region, Voronezh Region and the city of Voronezh regulating the procedure for registration of people arriving for permanent residence in the mentioned regions”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30328.pdf.
7. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 14-П from June 13, 1996 “Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of Part 5 of the Article 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR on account of complaint by V.V. Schelukhin”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30276.pdf.
8. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 16-П from July 15, 1996 г. “Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of Item 1 of Article 1 and Item 4 of Article 3 of the Russian Federation Law “Concerning Road Funds in the Russian Federation”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30329.pdf.
9. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 2-П from January 28, 1997 «Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of Part 4 of Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR on account of complaints by B.V. Antipov, R.L. Gitis and S.V. Abramov”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://http://http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30366.pdf.
10. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 2-П from January 30, 2001  «Concerning the case over the constitutionality verification of Item 1d and Item 3 of Article 20 of the Law of the Russian Federation “Concerning the Fundamental Principles of the Taxation System in the Russian Federation” as reviewed by Federal Law from July 31, 1998 “Concerning the Introduction of Amendments and Additions to Article 20 of the Law of the Russian Federation “Concerning the Fundamental Principles of the Taxation System in the Russian Federation” and provisions of the Law of the Chuvash Republic “Concerning Sales Tax”, the Law of the Kirov Region “Concerning the Sales Tax” and the Law of the Chelyabinsk Region “Concerning the Sales Tax” on account of the Chelyabinsk Region Arbitral Court inquiry as well as complaints by “Russkaya Troyka” LLC and a number of citizens”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://http://http://http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30246.pdf.
11. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 7-П from April 02, 2002 “Concerning the case over constitutionality verification of certain provisions of the Law “Concerning the recall of a local representative body deputy” of the Krasnoyarsk Region and the Law “Concerning the recall of a local representative body deputy, an elected official of local self-government in Koryak Autonomous District” on account of complaints by appellants A.G. Zlobin and Yu.A. Khnaev”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30389.pdf.
12. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 6-П from May 31, 2005 “Concerning the case over constitutionality verification of Federal Law “Concerning the Compulsory Insurance of the Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners” on account of inquiries by the State Assembly – El Kurultai of the Altai Republic, Volgograd Region Duma, a group of State Duma Deputies and a complaint by appellant S.N. Shevtsov”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision30343.pdf.
13. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 17-П from July 20, 2010 “Concerning the case over constitutionality verification of Item 2з of the List of kinds of salaries and other kinds of income from which alimony for minor children can be deducted” on account of a complaint by L.R. Amayakyan”. [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision37898.pdf.
14. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF№ 1-П from January 19, 2017 “Concerning the case over the adjudication of the question of the possibility to execute, in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights from July 31, 2014 in the case of “OJSC YUKOS Oil Company vs Russia” [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision258613.pd.
15. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of RF № 15-П from April 17, 2018 «Concerning the case over constitutionality verification of Item 2а of Article 24 of the Federal Law “Concerning Military Duty and Military Service” on account of a complaint by P.A. Spiridonov and the inquiry by Bugulma city court in the Republic of Tatarstan [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://www.http://doc.ksrf.ru/decision/KSRFDecision327231.pdf.
16. D.A. Basangov. The significance of expert statements in constitutional proceedings// Magazine of Russian law. – 2008. - № 11. - Pages 15- 22.
17. N.P. Katorgina“Innovational research as a locomotive of modern science development: from theoretical paradigms to practice”: electronic collection of scientific articles following the XVI International research and practice conference. – М.: RDC IISS. – 2019. / [Electronic resource]. – Available at: – URL: http://conference-nicmisi.ru/innovatsionnye-issledovaniya-kak-lokomotiv-razvitiyasovremennoj-nauki-ot-teoreticheskih-paradigm-k-praktike.ht