Dissenting opinions on the freedom of peaceful assembly

The main purpose of the article is to analyze the content of dissenting opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Russia regarding the implementation of freedom of peaceful assembly. The author concluded that in 2009–2020, there were three judgements (postanovlenie) and one decision (opredelenie) by the Constitutional Court of Russia (hereinafter also referred to as the CCR) that were accompanied by dissenting opinions of CCR judges. In 2013, one single judgment of the CCR was accompanied by three dissenting opinions. This research analyzes the six dissenting opinions of the judges of the Russian Constitutional Court, which considered various problematic issues regarding the implementation of freedom of peaceful assembly in the contemporary Russian Federation. The author also analyzes the role and significance of the dissenting opinions in the context of amendments to the Russian Constitution in 2020, and changes in legislation that significantly limited the publicity of dissenting opinions of CCR judges. This article shows the role of dissenting opinions as: a means to raising the level of legal consciousness in society, a guarantee of a fair and open trial, a guarantee of the independence of judiciary and judicial democracy, and a means of improving legislation and law enforcement practice. The author concludes that the CCR judges’ dissenting opinions could in some cases be regarded as “sleeping law”, because the European Court of Human Rights later confirmed the judges’ minority report in findings. The article uses traditional research methods such as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, logical method, and comparative legal methods. The author expresses that it is necessary to keep the democratic tradition of constitutional justice, which allowed the publicity of dissenting opinions of CCR judges during 1991–2020. It is also concluded that the dissenting opinions of the Constitutional Court judges enable a deeper understanding of the political and legal nature, features, and main stages of the development of Russian public assembly law, one of direct democracy’s most important institutions alongside elections and referendums. The author argues that dissenting opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Russia make it possible to identify gaps and defects in the legal regulation of public events in Russia.

The study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Expert Institute for Social Research (EISR) in the framework of the research project no. 20-011-31740.

About the author: Alexander Salenko – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Master of Law (LL.M., Göttingen), Associate Professor of Department of International and European Law at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Member of the Qualification Board of Judges of the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad, Russia.

Citation: Salenko A. (2021) Osobye mneniya o svobode mirnykh sobraniy [Dissenting opinions on the freedom of peaceful assembly]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.30, no.3, pp.17–38. (In Russian).

References

(2021) Sud prigovoril Sarkozi k godu tyur'my po delu o korruptsii [The court sentenced Sarkozy to a year in prison in a corruption case]. Kommersant, 1 March. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4711204 (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Blokhin P. (2015) O spornykh momentakh v ponimanii instituta amicus curiae i ego vozmozhnogo oblika v rossiyskom konstitutsionnom sudoproizvodstve [On the controversial points in the understanding of the amicus curiae and its possible appearance in the Russian constitutional proceedings]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.24, no.1, pp.130–143. (In Russian).

Bocharova S. (2020) Konstitutsionnyy Sud zashchitili ot “politizatsii protsessa” [The Constitutional Court was protected from the “politicization of the process”]. Vedomosti, 21 October. Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2020/10/21/844123-konstitutsionnii-sud (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Danielyan A.S., Litovko K.S. (2019) Osoboe mnenie sud'i Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii kak istochnik prava [Special opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation as a source of law]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.12, pp.132–135. (In Russian).

Demchenko N., Gordeev V., Lebedeva E. (2020) Ocheredi na odinochnye pikety predlozhili priznat' mitingom [The queues for single pickets were proposed to be recognized as a rally]. RBK, 18 November. Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/politics/18/11/2020/5fb4c0329a7947e566d376cc (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Drigo E. (2016) Institut osobogo mneniya sud'i Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii: regulirovanie i praktika primeneniya [The dissenting opinion of the judge in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: regulation and practice]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.25, no.3, pp.79–93. (In Russian).

Gadzhiev G.А. (2005) Publikatsiya osobogo mneniya, ili istoriya normy, kotoraya yavlyaetsya kamertonom sudebnoy reformy v Rossii [Publishing a dissenting opinion, or the history of the norm, which is the model of the judicial reform in Russia]. Zakonodatel'stvo i praktika mass-media, no.12, pp.27–30. (In Russian).

Glikin K. (2020) Osoboe mnenie sudey stanovitsya taynoy [The dissenting opinion of judges becomes a secret]. Vedomosti, 18 October. Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2020/10/18/843650-osoboe-mnenie (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Isaeva M., Sergeeva I., Suchkova M. (2014) Regulirovanie svobody sobraniy v Rossii: “sistemnaya problema” i novye narusheniya? Analiz s tochki zreniya praktiki Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Freedom of assembly in Russia: a structural problem and further violations? An analysis in the context of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.4, no.3, pp.79–90. (In Russian).

Kartashova M.G. (2019) Pravo sud'i Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii na osoboe mnenie [The right of a judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to a dissenting opinion]. Konstitutsionalizm i gosudarstvovedenie, no.3, pp.49–58. (In Russian).

Khalikova Yu. (2020) Pravosudie bez sobstvennogo mneniya [Justice without your own opinion]. RIDDLE Russia, 4 December. Available at: https://www.ridl.io/ru/pravosudie-bez-sobstvennogo-mnenija/ (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Khramova T. (2020) Ispytanie pandemiey: ogranicheniya svobody sobraniy i slova v svete printsipa proportsional'nosti [The challenges of the pandemic: restrictions on freedoms of assembly and speech in the light of the proportionality principle]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.29, no.4, pp.36–54. (In Russian).

Kleandrov M.I. (2019) Institut osobogo mneniya sud'i: kakovy ego znachenie i osnovnye funktsii? [The institute of dissenting opinion of a judge: what is its value and main functions?]. Rossiyskoe pravosudie, no.9, pp.14–24. (In Russian).

Kokotova M.А. (2019) Tseli sushchestvovaniya osobykh mneniy v Konstitutsionnom Sude RF i Verkhovnom sude SShA [The purposes of the existence of dissenting opinions in the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the US Supreme Court]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.4, pp.23–28. (In Russian).

Kononov A.L. (2006) Pravo na osoboe mnenie [The right to a dissenting opinion]. Zakon, no.11, pp.43–46. (In Russian).

Krasnov M.A. (2003) U sudebnoy vlasti est' tol'ko odin zashchitnik — obshchestvo [The judiciary has only one defender — society]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya, no.6, pp.2–4. (In Russian).

Luk'yanova E. (2020) Konstitutsionnyy Sud: novye instruktsii po primeneniyu [Constitutional Court: new instructions for use]. Vtimes, 12 October. Available at: https://www.vtimes.io/2020/10/12/konstitucionnyj-sud-novye-instrukcii-po-primeneniyu-a246# (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Morshchakova T. (2010) Konstitutsionnyy Sud, kotoryy my poteryali [The Constitutional Court that we have lost]. RAPSI, 1 October. Available at: http://rapsinews.ru/judicial_analyst/20101001/250794612.html (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Nagornaya M. (2021) Konstitutsionnyy Sud otkazalsya ot instituta amicus curiae [Constitutional Court refused the institution of amicus curiae]. Advokatskaya palata goroda Moskvy, 5 February. Available at: https://www.advokatymoscow.ru/press/smi/8932/ (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Podoplelova O. (2020) O proekte “Osoboe mnenie” [About the project “Dissenting Opinion”]. Blog “Osoboe Mnenie”, 1 November. Available at: http://osoboemnenie.info/podoplelova-o-proekte-osoboe-mnenie (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Pushkarskaya E. (2014) Blizhayshego druga Sil'vio Berluskoni otpravili v tyur'mu [Silvio Berlusconi’s closest friend was sent to prison]. Kommersant, 13 June. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2491759 (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Rumyantsev O. (2020) Bar'er bezal'ternativnosti: ob ogranicheniyakh publichnosti osobykh mneniy sudey Konstitutsionnogo Suda [Barrier of no alternative: on restrictions on the publicity of dissenting opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court]. Blog “Osoboe Mnenie”, 1 November. Available at: http://osoboemnenie.info/rumyantsev-baryer-bezalternativnosti (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Salenko A.V. (2020) Konstitutsionnaya reforma — 2020 i sudebnaya vlast': problemy nezavisimosti i samostoyatel'nosti [The сonstitutional reform 2020 and judicial power: independence and autonomy]. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie i pravovye issledovaniya, vol.6, no.3, pp.188–211. (In Russian).

Sultanov A.R. (2009) Konstitutsionnoe sudoproizvodstvo i “amicus curiae” [Constitutional judicial proceedings and “amicus curiae”]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya, no.4, pp.25–30. (In Russian).

Trifonova E. (2020) Koronavirus raspylil svobodu sobraniy [Сoronavirus cut off freedom of assembly]. Nezavisimaya gazeta, 11 May. Available at: https://www.ng.ru/politics/2020-05-11/3_7857_freedom.html (accessed: 06.06.2021). (In Russian).

Ulturgashev P. (2013) Osobye mneniya sudey v sravnitel'no-pravovom kontekste [Dissenting opinions of judges in a comparative legal context]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.22, no.6, pp.75–87. (In Russian).