The protection of subjective public rights in Russia: universal standards of access to justice

Available in Russian

Available for free

Author: Elena Gritsenko

DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2017-6-65-77

Keywords: Constitutional Court of Russia; European Convention on Human Rights; judicial protection; Russian Constitution; The European Court of Human Rights; субъективные права; субъективные публичные права; универсальные стандарты доступа к правосудию


Access to justice as a right, principle, and guarantee is the element of everyone’s right to judicial protection and the condition for its implementation is constitutional in nature and is recognized under international law as a fundamental human right. It is supported by international standards of access to the court as embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights, and is extensively developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This article examines the perceptions of these international standards in the Russian legal system, taking into account the provisions of the Russian Constitution and the interpretations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The author’s view on universal standards of access to justice is proposed as a set of principles, guarantees, and criteria for access to judicial protection that is recognized at the international, supranational, and national levels of legal regulation. A classification of these standards is also given. Depending on the legal content and focus, the following types of standards are distinguished: material, procedural, and institutional standards of access to justice. Material standards relate to the characteristics of the object of judicial protection and the conditions for access to it, while procedural and institutional standards relate to various aspects of the organization of judicial protection, such as institutional judicial organization (institutional standards) and judicial proceedings (procedural standards). The peculiarities of the perception of universal standards of access to judicial protection in the Russian legislation are largely due to the allocation of subjective public rights as an independent object of protection. In this regard, it seems necessary to differentiate the forms of judicial protection and to distinguish the administrative judicial proceedings as a guarantee of access to justice and an important way to ensure the effectiveness of judicial protection of subjective public rights.

About the author: Elena Gritsenko – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor, Department of State and Administrative Law, State University of Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Citation: Gritsenko E. (2017) Zashchita sub’ektivnykh publichnykh prav v Rossii: universal’nye standarty dostupa k pravosudiyu [The protection of subjective public rights in Russia: universal standards of access to justice]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no. 6, pp. 65–77. (In Russian).


Blokhin P. (2016) Dvoynoy yubiley: Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie na sluzhbe prav cheloveka [Double anniversary. Constitutional justice at the service of human rights]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no. 2, pp. 117–141. (In Russian).

Bondar’ N., Dzhagaryan A. (2016) Pryamoe deystvie konstitutsii: genera­tsiya i garantirovanie konstitutsionnym pravosudiem [The direct application of the Constitution: the making and providing guarantees by constitutional justice]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no. 3, pp. 52–78. (In Russian).

Gritsenko E. (2016) Sub’ektivnoe publichnoe parvo kak ob’ekt sudebnoy zashchity [Subjective public right as an object of judicial protection]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya, no. 4, pp. 27–30. (In Russian).

Dolzhikov A. (2012) Vliyanie konstitutsionnykh prav na rossiyskuyu pra­vovuyu sistemu [Influence of constitutional rights on the Russian legal system]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no. 6, pp. 109–120. (In Russian).

Kovler A. (2016) Mezhdunarodnye printsipy nezavisimoy sudebnoy vlasti: K probleme issledovaniya standartov spravedlivogo pravosudiya v kontekste sudeyskoy nezavisimosti [International principles of the independent judiciary. An outline to study of fair trial standards in the context of judicial independence]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no. 2, pp. 119–124. (In Russian).

Lebedev V.M., Khabrieva T.Ya. (ed.) (2012) Pravosudie v sovremennom mire [Justice in the modern world], Мoscow : Norma: INFRA-M. (In Russian).

Makarov P.N. (2014) Kontsentratsiya protsessual’nogo materiala pri razreshenii grazhdanskikh sporov (opyt Germanii) [Concentration of procedural material by resolving civil disputes (German experience)], Мoscow: Statut. (In Russian).

Morshchakova T.G. (ed.) (2012) Standarty spravedlivogo pravosudiya (mezhdunarodnye i natsional’nye praktiki) [Fair trial standards (international and national practice)], Moscow: Mysl’. (In Russian).

Sakhnova T.V. (2013) Civilisticheskiy process: missiya v menyayushchemsya mire [Civil procedure: a mission in the changing world]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo processa, no. 1, pp. 14–33. (In Russian).

Solovykh S.Zh. (2013) Konkretizatsiya soderzhaniya sub’ektivnogo pro­tsessual’nogo prava na dostup k pravosudiyu v arbitrazhnom sudoproizvodstve [Concretization of the content of the subjective procedural right to access to justice in arbitration proceedings]. Sovremennoe pravo, no. 9, pp. 76–80. (In Russian).

Sultanov A.R. (2014) Bor’ba za pravo na obzhalovanie sudebnogo reshe­niya [The struggle for the right to appeal a court decision], Мoscow: Statut. (In Russian).

Sheremetova G.S. (2015) Pravo na besplatnuyu yuridicheskuyu pomoshch’ v grazhdanskom processe [Right to free legal aid in civil proceedings], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).