A lawsuit is good, but four is better – Newspaper Kommersant No. 158 (7359) dated 08/30/2022
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court accepted for proceedings a new, already the fourth claim of the ex-deputy of the State Duma from the Communist Party Valery Rashkin, challenging the decision of the chamber to deprive him of his mandate. Previous lawsuits have been dismissed by the Constitutional and Supreme Courts. As the communist himself told Kommersant, this time he picked up such formulations that the court could not reject. The plaintiff is trying to prove that there is a gap in the legislation regarding the deprivation of powers that the people, and not colleagues in parliament, endow the deputy with. Lawyers believe that Mr. Rashkin has little chance of winning the Supreme Council, but the situation when the Duma itself deprives a deputy of a mandate “contradicts the logic of separation of powers.”
On August 29, communist Valery Rashkin received a notice from the Supreme Court (SC) about the acceptance of a new lawsuit. Mukhamed Bidzhev, a lawyer for the Moscow city committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, said on his Telegram channel that the courts had rejected three previous complaints. The meeting of the Supreme Court is scheduled for September 29.
In a new lawsuit (Kommersant has a copy), Valery Rashkin again points to gross procedural violations when the Duma considered the issue of depriving him of his powers. Firstly, at the time of this decision, the chamber did not receive certified documents from the court of first instance, the plaintiff points out: “At 16:00 on May 23, the appeal was still being considered in the Saratov Regional Court, and the chairman of the commission (head of the mandate commission of the State Duma, United Russia Otari Arshba. — “b”) at about the same time, with a vote at a meeting of the Council of the State Duma, he made a proposal to consider the issue at a plenary meeting on May 25. Secondly, the credentials committee did not hold a face-to-face meeting before submitting its decision, the communist claims. He also emphasizes that, according to the law on the status of a State Duma deputy, the decision to terminate powers can be appealed to the Supreme Court. “I believe that at the moment there is my unconditional right to apply to the court for the protection of my violated rights and legally protected interests,” sums up the plaintiff.
Recall that the Duma prematurely deprived Mr. Rashkin, convicted of illegal hunting, on May 25, just two days after the conviction came into force. The communist tried to start a legal dispute for the lost mandate in the Constitutional Court (CC): on June 1, he sent a complaint there about the procedure for early termination of powers, citing the fact that such a procedure is not precisely defined in the legislation and this violates his constitutional right to predictability of laws. However, the Constitutional Court refused to consider the complaint, considering the appeal of the ex-deputy to be inconsistent with the requirements of the law on the Constitutional Court: the absence of a specific court case, according to the Constitutional Court, meant that Valery Rashkin had not exhausted all remedies.
In July, Mr. Rashkin filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court left the complaint motionless. As follows from the rejected definition, the Communist’s application was to be considered by the Constitutional Court, since the only reason to challenge the Duma’s decision was the discrepancy between the provisions of the law on the status of a deputy and the Basic Law. In his complaint, Valery Rashkin referred to the fact that the Duma’s decision was of a pronounced political nature and did not meet the interests of the majority of voters. The Supreme Court replied that it was authorized to check the grounds and procedure for making a controversial decision and whether it violates the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the plaintiff, but Mr. Rashkin did not provide information about such contradictions. Therefore, his application is subject to “leaving without movement” – at least until the indicated shortcomings are corrected, the Supreme Court decided. While the communist challenged this refusal in the appellate court, the time allotted by the court for correcting the shortcomings had expired. Therefore, another complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, due to new circumstances – and the court finally agreed to accept it, Mukhamed Bidzhev specified Kommersant.
As Valery Rashkin himself explained to Kommersant, there is no fundamental difference between the claims, we are talking about adjusting the wording. In his opinion, none of the two courts wanted to consider an obvious gap in the legislation, which does not contain a mechanism for the “people’s” deprivation of a deputy mandate. “I was handed the mandate by voters, not United Russia, but the recall mechanism is not spelled out, including in the Criminal Code. It is clear that the constitutional majority in the State Duma are opponents of the Communist Party, so the decision should be made either by the Constitutional or the Supreme Court, ”said the ex-deputy of the State Duma.
Electoral lawyer Roman Smirnov believes that if fewer mistakes were made and more evidence was presented when filing a lawsuit, it would be easier for Valery Rashkin to prove his position. When considering this case, the priority in the assessment will most likely be with the State Duma, whose position is likely to be worked out and documented, the expert suggests: , is very debatable. But in this situation, the plaintiff needs to go through all the instances and achieve consideration by the Constitutional Court so that “future colleagues in misfortune” can use the accumulated practice, the lawyer concludes.
Lawyer Vadim Prokhorov, who represented ex-Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov (“A Just Russia”) deprived of his powers in the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, admits that it is difficult for him to assess the prospects for the case of Valery Rashkin, since there is no established practice in such cases. But the situation when the Duma itself deprives a deputy of his status is “political cannibalism” and contradicts the logic of the separation of powers, the expert argues: such a decision should be made either by those who elected the deputy, or at least by the court. “At one time, we tried to prove this to both the Supreme and the Constitutional Court, but we did not find support there,” the lawyer recalls. The Constitutional Court decided that the norm itself does not contradict the Constitution, at least if it allows to appeal against the deprivation of the mandate in court.
[ad_2]
Source link